Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:40, 24 February 2024

WP:DS/CO

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Companies.

Further information

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

Archived discussions (starting from 2015) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Companies deletion

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

The result was redirect‎ to CBRE Group as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 22:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FacilitySource

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

Unnotable company. It reads like an ad for them and only has routine press coverage. Flux55 (my talk page) 23:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, Technology, and United States of America. Flux55 (my talk page) 23:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CBRE Group since it was purchased by them. If it was not purchased, the existing news would not exist. The news are mostly about this buyout.Maxcreator (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I think a merge is inappropriate per WP:BALASP, as a merge would give far too much weight to this subsidiary; there's already a bullet point the article noting the merger, and I don't think much more needs to be added. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lipcon, Margulies, and Winkleman

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of the firm itself. Similar to many articles about lawyers, the problem is that notability for the firm is not inherited from coverage about lawsuits it was a part of, or from quotes about other topics attributed to the firm's lawyers. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Florida. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per @A412. Just a self-promoting non-notable law firm. Nirva20 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that they fail WP:NCORP and this is really just an article about a law firm doing its expected job. Editing84 (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete per User:Bearian/Standards#Law_firms. It has had lots of newsworthy lawsuits, but little about the law firm or its partners. My essay is not policy, so try to convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlinqIO

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

Sourcing both current and online is either WP:PRIMARY (press releases) or non-WP:RELIABLE pubs. TLA^tlak 07:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TLA^tlak 07:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just launched in Sep. 2023. I cannot find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and none of the cited sources contribute to notability. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mexican Summer. Star Mississippi 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology Editions

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

Subject fails NCORP. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Typically, publishers of thought are not themselves the subject of other's thoughts. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and New York. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mexican Summer, no coverage besides initial press release and trivial mentions as publisher. Anthology Recordings might be a better redirect target, but it doesn't seem independently notable either. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mexican Summer. The previous redirect attempt was absurd. The target, Anthology Recordings, had a far worse WP:NCCORP deficiency, being supported by only one primary ref. There should be a proper merge to the parent (Mexican Summer) rather than a WP:BLAR-out of content. Dl2000 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. In a cursory search, did not find any other significant coverage about the publisher independent from the books. If the article needed to exist as a list to house content related to books that would not otherwise warrant their own page, we could entertain that, but not seeing much written about each book. czar 18:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clover (toy company)

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

I am unable to find any sources in English or Japanese, delete per WP:ORGCRITE Annwfwn (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Annwfwn (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find Wikipedia mirrors and hobby websites such as this one. Broc (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The corresponding Japanese article at ja:クローバー (玩具メーカー) may have references. Also, try the Japanese equivalent of {{findarticles}} in the box at the top of the Japanese article at ja:クローバー (玩具メーカー) and also at these links: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found a few reliable sources, now added to the article. Plenty of detail on this site which itself cites source material with a bibliography. Also found supporting info on JSTOR. Liandrei (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence of a WP:BEFORE search that includes Japanese-language sources as required before starting this discussion. Two good English-language sources already in the article and Liandrei's search turning up more. I would urge all English-language editors to remember to keep WP:NOENG in mind and look for non-English sources for materials. DCsansei (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically I did search in Japanese. This article has been unsourced since 2008 until I attempted to find sources in English and Japanese, was not successful and nominated it for deletion - which brought it to Liandrei's attention who added the two sources. I'm completely fine with the outcome of this nomination regardless of the outcome - if the article is sourced instead of deleted, that's wonderful. Frankly though, I'm disappointed that you've chosen this dialogue rather than assessing the situation more adequately. It discourages new editors from being bold when they encounter more experienced editors who are quick to not assume good faith. Annwfwn (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Already deleted as G7. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DIDWW Ireland Limited

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

Article previously deleted (February 2018, "Expired PROD, concern was: Company has no notability. Seemingly created to legitimise dubious cold call marketing.") Nothing has really changed since to indicate notability has been acquired - doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NCORP. References are mainly press releases in niche press and listings, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Ireland. Shaws username . talk . 22:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nom. ww2censor (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Not a notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shield Media

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP, with all the sources merely covering routine business transactions. Let'srun (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Louisiana. Let'srun (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Trainwreck‎ on several counts. It is no longer red links, which solves to the nom's primary concern as well as the inhibited search issue. Issues of hijacking in 2018 by an IP or currently by a named editor, cannot be solved via AfD. If an additional DAB page or section of this one is needed, it can be created. If this needs to come back here, suggest conduct issues are resolved elsewhere first Star Mississippi 01:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trenkwalder

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

It makes no sense to have a disambiguation page of red links. Without a notable entity of this name, the article should be deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: This page is an anthroponymy SIA as opposed to a dab: see WP:SIANOTDAB. There are actually many SIAs without a blue link entry, such as Feraye (name) and Aziory. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Except when it was Special:Permalink/801021320. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does it matter? The promotional article has already been overwritten by a dab (which I later converted to a SIA) since 2018. If necessary, just split the history from the current article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, because the administrator deletion tool deletes an entire edit history not an article title. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Thanks for pointing that out because I've been here ten years and never saw WP:SIA. The subject still isn't notable, and the entries in de-wiki are themselves probably not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, (1) this article was hijacked from being an article about a company, to which an IP editor took objection, and who converted it into this rather strange list; (2) it doesn't qualify as a SIA as there is no special notability in the set of people sharing this particular name. In fact it's very rare for a family name to have set-notability unless the people who share the name are related, and a sufficient number of them are individually wiki-notable for people to want to write about them; the whole concept of SIA's doesn't really help family-name articles; (3) and it's all the wrong way round. Actually I think there's a chance some of these individuals are wikinotable, and this could be a reasonable DAB page, but we write the articles first, and the DAB pages afterwards. So at the moment, as a DAB page I'd delete it, but are we happy to ignore its history as a genuine article about a largish company that clearly exists/existed? Which article are we truly aiming to delete, here? One option might be to restore it as an article about the company, possibly moving to a different title, and permit the recreation of a DAB page if anyone cares to translate the DE articles about the various people of this name. Elemimele (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a fair discussion about this page, I restored the original dab-page as it was before being redirected and slashed. The Banner talk 16:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trenkwalder seems to have been bought out by the Droege group, for which there's a German wikipedia article,[1] but we don't have one as a redirect target. We do have an article about Droege's founder, Walter Droege. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have again restored the original disambiguation page and reverted hijacking the page by user:NmWTfs85lXusaybq. He seems very persistent in his attempt to destroy this page. The Banner talk 17:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article about the company is the original one and got hijacked by a dab. Just keep it as it was when the AfD started or restore it to the original one. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Out of our hands now; I guess you should have left well-enough alone. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, this is ridiculous; we can't discuss a moving target. Here is my !vote for the admin who closes this: Restore original version of this article and move to Trenkwalder Group AG, and delete this DAB page (as it's not a SIA), unless sufficient genuine Trenkwalder articles emerge to justify a genuine DAB. As I write, there are only two links, one of which is tenuous. It is conceivable that there are other notable Trenkwalders based on the German Wikipedia, but we don't seem to have the articles to disambiguate here, yet. Elemimele (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, we had a redirect that was nominated for deletion and after an alternative was offered that RfD was closed as a "procedural close" (what IMHO was incorrect, as the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator). Then we got a slashed version of the original dab-page, what I corrected to the original dab-page (i.e. the version that got redirected), then an article of a company showed up, then the original dab, then the slashed dab again. What are we now discussing in this AfD? The Banner talk 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - - As a point of order which doesn't really help, I was the RfD nominator and I did not withdraw the nomination. It's here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 23#Trenkwalder. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given the nature of the deletion tool, I'd say the question is: Is there anything in this edit history, any form of this article, that we want and can justify per policy? Is the company notable? Is the list of people with this surname, and potential translations from the German Wikipedia, at various points also including a redlink for the very same company bizarrely inviting editors to write the original article all over again, suitable? 90.253.253.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has given us an utter mess of an edit history, to sort out whether and what part of we want. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no version of a disambiguation page that is better than nothing at all because any such page would inhibit Search. Which was precisely the point of the RfD before it was prematurely closed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the 17 Sept 2017 version article about the company which was overwritten by IP in 2018, and upgrade it with sources from the de:wiki article de:Trenkwalder_Group and/or de:Trenkwalder Personaldienste (they seem to be nominated to be merged), with a hatnote to Hubert Trenkwalder who seems to be the only surname-holder in en.wiki ... ah, there are 4 football clubs for whom Trenkwalder would be a valid dab page entry (the company seems to have sponsored several), so perhaps a new dab page is needed. A dab page is needed, to include: Trenkwalder Reggio Emilia, Trenkwalder Reggio Emilia, Trenkwalder Admira Amateure and SK Schwadorf, either explicitly or as an "in-title" See Also link. PamD 12:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Retail Stores Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails NCORP. The citations provided all re-state the subject's press releases. My BEFORE search revealed more of same. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Philippines. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass WP:NCORP. It is currently WP:PROMOTION produced by a ~~likely~~ confirmed COI editor, so prompt deletion may be a good idea.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already the subject of an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metro Retail Stores Group Inc.) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Problematic page with much COI editing by more than one editor. Fails WP:NCORP and seems the subject is attempting to use WP to promote themselves. --John B123 (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metro Retail Stores Group Inc. participants: I dream of horses (talk · contribs), RioHondo (talk · contribs), Music1201 (talk · contribs), AusLondonder (talk · contribs), Mean as custard (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Could you please explain your apparent CANVASSing for inclusionists? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informing all of the previous AfD's participants about the current AfD is good practice and does not violate the canvassing guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says:
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
Sources
1. Analyst reports:
  1. "Metro Retail Stores Group Inc (MRSGI) - Financial and Strategic SWOT Analysis Review". GlobalData. December 2023. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03 – via Research and Markets.
    Here are some sections of the 32-page report:
    1. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Corporate Strategy
    2. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - SWOT Analysis
    3. SWOT Analysis - Overview
    4. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Strengths
    5. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Weaknesses
    6. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Opportunities
    7. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Threats
    8. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Key Competitors
  2. Cheng, Justin Richmond (2020-05-19). "Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. 1Q20 Operating Income Below Estimates". COL Financial. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The analyst report notes: "MRSGI’s 1Q20 sales grew 9.9% y/y to Php8.5Bil. This is in line with estimates accounting for 21.7% and 21.3% of COL and consensus forecasts, respectively. The company recorded a blended same-store-sales growth of 3% during the period. Sales growth was mainly driven by the strong performance of food retail sales (+19%). Demand for grocery-related products significantly increased after the implementation of the enhanced community quarantine in Luzon and other areas by mid-March. However, this also disrupted the sales and operations of MRSGI’s general merchandise business (-11%). Management decided to close all of its department stores, even those outside Luzon, to support the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Geographically, around 35-40% MRSGI’s sales comes from Luzon, while the balance is from stores in Visayas."
    The analyst report notes: "Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. (MRSGI) is one of the leading retailers in the Philippines with a market leading position in the Visayas and a growing presence in Luzon. The company is predominantly a supermarket and department store operator. As of 1H15, supermarkets were the largest contributor to sales, accounting for 49% of total net sales. However, its hypermarket format has been the fastest growing segment since being launched in 2011. Hypermarkets now account for 19% of total net sales. MRSGI’s supermarket segment includes supermarkets under the Metro Supermarket brand and neighborhood stores under the Metro Fresh N Easy brand. It also operates department stores under the Metro Department Store brand and hypermarkets under the Super Metro brand."
  3. Tan, April Lynn (2019-04-15). "Consumer Sector: Consumer companies to benefit from lower inflation" (PDF). COL Financial. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The analyst report notes: "Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. (MRSGI). MRSGI is one of the biggest retailers in the Philippines with a market leading position in the Visayas through its Metro branded supermarkets, hypermarket and department stores. MRSGI’s core earnings should start normalizing in 2019 after falling in 2018 due to the fire incident in January which led to the closure of its flagship store in Metro Ayala Cebu. Note that the supermarket already reopened in December of last year while its department store is scheduled to reopen soon. Moreover, the company has successfully addressed issues which hampered the expansion of its retail foot print in the past, allowing it to open eight new stores in 2019 from only seven during the past three year. Finally, valuations are very attractive with the stock trading at only 13.5X 2019 P/E. This is despite our expectation that profits would grow by a compounded annual growth rate of 21% over the next five years."
  4. "Retail Market in the Philippines Growth, Size, Trends, Analysis Report by Type, Application, Region and Segment Forecast 2022-2026". Technavio. January 2022. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The 120-page analyst report notes: "The report analyzes the market's competitive landscape and offers information on several market vendors, including: ... Metro Retail Stores Group Inc. ..."
2. Newspaper articles:
  1. Dumlao-Abadilla, Doris (2015-11-23). "Metro Retail: New play on the trading block". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The article notes: "“I think their knowledge and experience in the Visayas area set them apart. Branding and location as well—they are not something that any new player can copy,” says April Lee-Tan, head of research at leading online stock brokerage COL Financial. “I think the fact that they are able to survive in [Metro Manila] despite the more competitive environment also shows that they are not going to be a push over to the other big boys.”"
  2. "Metro Retail Stores marks corporate milestone with IPO". The Philippine Star. 2015-11-06. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The article notes: "Metro, which is the retail arm of Cebu-based Vicsal Development Corporation, operates 45 multi-format stores in key areas in the Visayas, Central Luzon, National Capital Region, Calabarzon, and the Bicol region. According to a 2014 Euromonitor report, Metro is the largest department store and hypermarket operator in the Visayas, and the second-largest supermarket operator in terms of retail sales value."
  3. Austria, Jenniffer B. (2015-10-15). "Gaisanos finalizing IPO plan". Manila Standard Today. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The article notes: "Metro Retail stores have steadily grown to become a market leader in the Visayas after the opening the first outlet in Cebu City in 1982. As of June 30, 2015, Metro Retail had a portfolio of 45 stores, with nine in Metro Manila, 10 in Luzon and 26 in Visayas, with a total net selling space of approximately 197,873 square meters. According to Euromonitor, the company was the third largest supermarket operator, the third largest department store owner and the fourth largest hypermarket operator in the Philippines in terms of retail value sales in 2014."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Metro Retail Stores Group to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of new sources found would be helpful to whomever closes this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include [2], [3], [4], [5]. The promotional edits were reverted (diff) and the article is presently in a neutral state. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and Northamerica1000. -Ian Lopez @ 14:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per Cunard's assessment. Maxcreator (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

315Work Avenue

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCOMPANY. Although the presented sources are reliable, coverage is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE. Hitro talk 07:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Hitro talk 07:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough good references on trusted websites. I respect the editors' tag of advertisement, I'll improv it by removing information which looks like an advertisement . Lazzy Crazzy (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – too much ROUTINE news coverage, as the nominator stated. Articles starting with "(subject) leashes/takes/signs" feels more than routine coverage. No other GNG passable source so fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Feels this page should stay, notable entity and news sources. Awards on this profile's name tooWikieditorhans1 (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — Wikieditorhans1 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dwaipayangreenreef (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I've blocked a couple of participants in this AfD as part of a UPE group that have been pushing the same articles over the past four years and evading salting protections by creating the articles under different titles. This article title doesn't seem to fall under that evasion but the participant link (sock/meat) is established through the other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 03:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promotional based on the references and the article itself. No significant coverage seen. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 08:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. Does not satisfy WP:NCOMPANY. Jamiebuba (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore references are required to meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines to establish topic notability. They don't, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pressat

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, appears no more notable than at the 2013 AFD. The problem is that there's no significant coverage of the company. The only things actually about Pressat all appear to be sourced to the same 2013 announcement that they accept Bitcoin, with no further coverage. The good-looking references from The Guardian, LA Times, and CBS News all cite a survey from the company about coffee drinking with no WP:SIGCOV of the actual company. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Companies, and United Kingdom. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A recent new article about a PR distribution firm. I gave a "delete" opinion in the 2013 AfD deletion; looking at this new article instance, neither the 2013 announcement-based coverage about accepting Bitcoin nor the 2014 item about fraudsters issuing fake invoices for their work rises above trivial coverage, nor does the coffee-drinking survey. Clearly a company going about its business in its chosen sector, but searches are not finding evidence of notability. A redirect to the article on the GlobeNewswire parent could be an ATD, though Pressat is not mentioned there. AllyD (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Papara (company)

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

This is a for-profit company that has to meet NCORP to be notable. Note that this guideline sets a higher standard for sources than the regular GNG. The source must have an independent author and independent content. The latter part is the most important difference here. Independent content means: "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".

Coming to this article specifically, we can see that the sourcing here mostly consists of sponsorship agreements made between the Papara and another party, or sources directly from websites related to the company. While not in the article, other sources include announcements of Papara buying other companies, Papara expanding its services, and even more sponsorship agreements. While all of these are generally published by reliable outlets, they can't be considered as independent content since they rely on "content produced by interested parties" and hence do not count towards notability.

I tried searching for better sources to no avail. There are so much trash sources online that it's almost impossible to pick out good ones. Most book sources are about Papara, French Polynesia. Notable Turkish companies almost always have a journal article on DergiPark (partially) dedicated to themselves, which is not the case here. Nothing worthy of note in TWL either. It appears that Papara is actively throwing money for the recognizability of its name. This practice, however, does not always coincide with our notability guidelines; the lack of independent sources means that the company is not notable for Wikipedia as it fails the subject-specific guideline set for the topic. Styyx (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Turkey. Styyx (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the 1 billion 416 million TL stadium agreement with Trabzonspor [6] and the sponsorship agreement with Beşiktaş [7] are noteworthy on their own. Lionel Cristiano^? 17:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lionel Cristiano, did you by any chance see the nomination statement above regarding sources on sponsorship agreements or did you simply throw in a "too long; didn't read"? Styyx (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is football. Lionel Cristiano^? 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Delete’’’ as the organization seems to be not yet notable with sourcing coming mainly from primarily sources. However some good points were mentioned here in the discussion and the notability is not zero. DraculaParrot (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely sourced to a blog, and all I can find are PR items or fintech churnalism. This is about the only thing in a RS [8], basically "company makes lots of money". Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing for notability. Bro you are wrong. Papara refunds some of the money with its cashback feature. For example, when I pay Netflix and Spotify every month, I get half of my money back. Or when I buy medicine from the pharmacy, 10% of my money is refunded. 149.140.110.81 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain in Wikipedia terms. Styyx (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no question that this company's products are important for its customers, but that's not the question. There's no sign this company passes WP:NCORP and/or WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archetyp Market

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

Fails WP:NCORP - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I'm not familiar with tarnkappe.info, but there are no hits for it on the WP:RSN search, and it appears to be the only substantive source anyways. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand your point, but the trouble I am having is that most of the things that need to be cited are on Tor, and I am currently facing difficulties indexing everything that is on Tor and tor index's that would be accepted according to Wikipedia's guidelines. It's a tricky situation when trying to document a part of the internet that doesn't want to be found or is on Tor. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations you could give on getting this up to snuff Darkwebhistory (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - the RSes just don't seem to exist for a proper Wikipedia article on this - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puttshack

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

Not notable. No coverage past PR agencies and routine announcement. Award is not major duffbeerforme (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the page was deleted last week at RfD as it was not found suitable as a redirect to Oakbrook Center. Jay 💬 06:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of press surrounding location openings but nothing that really covers WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Award winning company which can be redirected to Topgolf. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they related? Topgolf founders are partners in starting Puttshack. Topgolf has only a See also entry for Puttshack currently. Jay 💬 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Jay:~~, nothing in WP:NCORP allows for notability simply for winning an award. Are there any references meeting WP:ORGCRIT that you found. Let me know as I may have missed some in my search. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I think you meant to ping Jax 0677. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Thanks for the courtesy ping. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Forbes article outlines big plans for expansion, but at the moment it seems to be still TOOSOON to be notable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for clearly failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The only keep vote frankly does not make sense and should be ignored (keep the page as it could be redirected to an unrelated company). --Cavarrone 12:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReLiva Physiotherapy and Rehab

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

spam from blocked paid editor refbombed to primary sources, routine announcements, pr and copyright violations on udrop duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advert for a non-notable enterprise. KJP1 (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Paid advertising created by indef-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy Wellness Foundation

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

spam from blocked paid editor. non notable business. bombarded with press releases and public relations announcements. some sources used dishonesty, not verifying the pages content. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a recent new PR agency, supported by PR sources. Discounting the announcement-based coverage of awards given by the company, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Paid advertising created by indef-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam from blocked sock. Quasi-independent looking sources originate via WP:RSPANI, which could be legit, but in combination with bad-faith user... probably unmarked paid content.

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Spill Response

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

No evidence of notability. None of the sources are both independednt and reliable and discuss the company. No doubt an emminently worthwhile company , but searches failed to find appropriate sources. The sort of company that probably has a low public profile. At present this fails WP:GNG but would be happy to be proved wrong if suitable sources can be found. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship Airlines

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

Unnotable company. I've checked the other language versions of this article and have seen nothing that would count as significant coverage. Flux55 (my talk page) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Flux55 (my talk page) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the time, it was one of four regional airlines that operated American Airlines's American Eagle brand with 135 aircraft operating scheduled passenger service from 4 hubs, according to the article even without doing a WP:BEFORE search. The company employed between 1,100 and 1,200 pilots. The article can use more and better references but that's not a reason to delete. A quick Google search turns out enough reliable sources to easily pass WP:GNG. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RecycledPixels, can you find some that meet WP:RS and establish notability? I suspect you may be right about notability, but without someone producing refs, we have to delete this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a good number of sources in ProQuest by searching "Flagship Airlines" Nashville, like this article about the company's history and this news story about the closure of its hub in Nashville. Sunnya343 (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources that have been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like there is coverage from what Sunny found. I also remember a lot of content about this airline in Robert Serling's book Eagle about American Airlines. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AF Compressors

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

Article about a company that reads like a press release. I originally PRODed this but it was decline because sources might exist basically. It's a direct translation of the French article made by the same account, which was a SPA who made these articles then left. References given are hard to verify, and no inline citations are used. The French article uses the same references. Magazine Entreprendre exists and was around at the date given so you could probably find the issue, but Druckluftteknik is just the (mispelled) German word for air compressor technology and Pack News doesn't return anything useful. I don't think this has enough reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP but if it existed since 1870 like it claims it might have some coverage so I'll be happy to withdraw this if enough reliable sourcing is found. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NCORP. I analyzed anew and reached the same conclusions as nom. The text is bad but not bad enough for TNT. Hence, just like the nom, I researched notability and could find very few sources for a company that claims to be world leaders in their field. All I found was niche and/or primary. gidonb (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the basic criteria for General Notability Guidelines Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FXGT

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

There's no indication that this meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The company won "Best Hybrid Broker 2022 at the Ultimate Fintech Awards", and "Best Broker Award 2023 by AtoZ Markets", awards of unclear notability from what I can find about them online. Sources cited for the company are press releases, an interview, reviews on sites of unknown reliability, and routine inclusions in listings. There's plenty more of that online, but no significant coverage that I can find in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing used is press releases or primary things... Non-notable awards won. What I find is PR about a new website, then into the crypto promo sites... Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, does not appear to be notable. Sargdub (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article creator moved this article to Foreign Trading Gross Experience, and nominated it for speedy deletion db-author. I've reverted the move, and declined the speedy deletion nomination, as it's ineligible by WP:CSD#G7. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyX DY-Building

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

This page was created in November 2023 during a brief flurry by a user whose only edits have been to corporations and projects within those corporations' works. Applied sources do not put this structure past the bar for WP:NBUILDING. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Korea. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBUILDING. An UPE/agency construction, professionally shot. scope_creep^Talk 15:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Environment, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below): Notable coverage in the Korean language. [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Side note, but several times a week an article with clear coverage in Korean gets nominated for deletion. I haven't seen anything, but is there anything in policy that asks that people search in the main language of the topic for notability before nominating? toobigtokale (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a frequent issue for articles with clear coverage in Japanese as well. From my knowledge, the applicable policy is WP:BEFORE B7 which asks nominators to "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek)". WP:GLOBAL and WP:NOENG are also applicable. There was also recently a deletion discussion for EnergyX which resulted in delete, seems like there may be enough coverage for notability with Korean sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the notice about potential paid editing. That's concerning. I think we could significantly cut down the article (the pic is definitely a copyvio anyway, south korea doesnt have freedom of panorama) as a compromise. toobigtokale (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Korean-language sources provided by toobigtokale. DCsansei (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's an incorrect assumption here the nominator didn't even look. Please assume good faith. I've been editing almost 19 years on English Wikipedia and have been an administrator for over four years. Before I nominate an article for deletion, I perform a reasonable BEFORE. I'll confess my inability to read Korean-language sources handicaps me greatly. That said, machine translations of the links already present and those User:Toobigtokale provided showed nothing approaching direct detailing on this project. I nominated this page because it was created by an apparent undeclared paid editor whose edits were almost entirely restricted to created pagespace related to Korean construction interests. The copyvio pic was uploaded by the page creator here. As an administrator, I see lots of promotional articles written on English Wikipedia about subjects in content and geographical areas where English sources are not available. I try to keep my unconscious bias in check, and often I fall short. But discussing THIS topic, on English Wikipedia, my analysis of sourcing so far is that it's composed entirely of routine business news with no direct detailing of the building itself. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to post machine translations on this process's talk page... BusterD (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for incorrectly assuming you didn't look. Didn't mean to cause offense. I hope you can sympathize with where my sentiment is coming from; 3-5 times a week I de-PROD or suggest keep on articles about Korea-related topics, and almost all of the time my suggestions are accepted. In my month or so of paying attention to article delete requests on WP:WikiProject Korea, I think around 60-70% I disagree with for coverage in Korean reasons.

Based on my reading of WP:NBUILD, it seems there's some wiggle room on interpreting degree of coverage for this building. I can understand concerns that the articles are not as in-depth as desired, and encourage others to weigh in. I did think the fact that it is a zero-energy building and energy-plus building was of some interest, but acknowledge sigcov takes priority. toobigtokale (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I acknowledge that this article being part of a concerning pattern of potential paid editing is not favorable to it being kept. Again, encourage others to weigh in. toobigtokale (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an aside and I'm not picking on this particular contributor. When I see obvious paid editing I want to inconvenience the editor as much as I reasonably can. I can do that best by taking their money away from them. I will prod and nominate and report and take any action which doesn't violate CIVIL in order to remove paid-space when I identify it as such. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly that makes sense and I didn't think about that; there needs to be stronger disincentivization towards paid editing. Otherwise they can/do scattershot and pray some parts of it will stick. I'm not really passionate about this topic and am happy to lean delete unless others have compelling arguments. toobigtokale (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Pud Brown. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Craft Records

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

(proceduarlly declined PROD) Label so obscure its Discogs page has two attributed releases. I strongly disagree with the previous de-prod rationale that offline sources may exist; nothing indicating that popped up on newspapers.com or the Google news archive. Moreover, many, many short-lived jazz labels came up in the late 40s and early 50s, too many for the music press to cover all of them, and the ability for one of them to sign one or two notable musicians for possibly less than a year does not indicate that coverage is likely to exist. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pud Brown, I'm guessing these are self-released by him. Probably covered by jazzfan magazines of the time, but I doubt coverage would be of the label, it would be of the releases, which really isn't independent of the artist. If sources for these releases can be found they can be added to the artist's article, and should coverage of the label somehow be found there's nothing lost (that would have to be re-built) by redirecting except "sky is blue" prose. I'm normally loathe to have coverage of 78rpm labels removed, because truly most of the available coverage has not been digitized, but the nom has it right on this one. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Pop Records

AfDs for this article:

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

unnotable single person operation. written like ad copy. ltb d l (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Oregon. ltb d l (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any significant coverage of the label. Some of the bands have coverage but notability is not inherited. Outside of a few blog posts mentioning it I can't find much else. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus for keep as GNG established with the addition of new sources. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarMate

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

Unnotable company. ~~All of the sources listed are affiliated with the site in some way.~~The first source is the company's homepage, the second is of an affiliate, while the last two are dead links. Even worser, this site has virtually no news coverage and was created by a one-purpose account. Interestingly, if you look in the article creator's talk page, it was actually speedy deleted but remade. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phrase Innovate Smarter in the article is a tagline from the products home page, so there is clearly some form of copypasta going on. More importantly, NN per nom MNewnham (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything for this entity, there's another one with the same name using ChatGPT technology that pops up in searches. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. English-language sources:
  1. Zhang, Zitong; Patra, Braja; Yaseen, Ashraf; Zhu, Jie; Sabharwal, Rachit; Roberts, Kirk; Cao, Tru; Wu, Hulin (2023-06-04). "Scholarly recommendation systems: a literature survey". Knowledge and Information Systems. 65. Springer-Verlag London: 4446–4447. doi:10.1007/s10115-023-01901-x.
    The article notes: "ScholarMate, a social research management tool launched in 2007 was used in 4 publications. It has more than 70,000 research groups created by researchers for their own projects, collaboration, and communication. As a platform for presenting publication research outputs, ScholarMate automatically collects scholarly related information about researchers’ output from multiple online resources. These resources include multiple online databases such as Scopus, one of the largest abstract and citation databases for peer-reviewed literature, including scientific journals, books, and conference proceedings. ScholarMate uses aggregated data to provide researchers with recommendations on relevant opportunities based on their profiles."
  2. Xu, Jie; Yuan, Xiaoqun (2013-04-01). "Online scholarly publishing in China: Who? What? How?". Learned Publishing. 26 (2): 93. doi:10.1087/20130205. ISSN 0953-1513.
    The article notes: "ScholarMate (www.scholarmate.com) is another good example of dotcom companies playing a role in scolarly communication. ScholarMate is a professional research social network website whose aim is to promote research collaboration and information sharing. Inspired by Facebook and LinkedIn, ScholarMate collects personal research output through the Internet and sets up an entry of unified access to all online academic information for all users. By creating a profile page on ScholarMate, researchers can manage publications, build links with friends and colleagues, recommend funding and career opportunities, as well as disseminate reseach outputs to increase impacts and citations. Lanched in August 2012, the website now has more than 20,000 registered users and the number is increasing."
2. Chinese-language sources:
  1. Zhang, Yaokun 张耀坤; Wu, Rui 吴瑞; Wang, Chaozhou 汪朝州 (January 2022). "我国本土学术社交网络科研之友的个案分析：困境与对策" [A Case Study of the Domestic Academic Social Networking Site ScholarMate in China: Dilemma and Countermeasures] (PDF). 高校图书馆工作 [Library Work in Colleges and Universities] (in Chinese). Hunan Provincial Department of Education [zh]. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1003-7845.2022.01.009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.
    The abstract notes: "This paper conducts a case study of ScholarMate, which is the earliest and the largest academic social networking site in China. The analysis results show that ScholarMate has a relatively accurate positioning and has formed a unique business model, but its user activation has been low for a long time, suggesting that the users’ continuous use needs to be improved. Clarifying that users of academic social networking sites are motivated primarily by acquiring academic information, it defines the core value of academic social networking sites as helping to identify the most valuable content for users quickly and accurately through social relations. Based on this, corresponding countermeasures are put forward from three aspects: resources, information discovery and users."
  2. Xu, Zhimin 许志敏 (2018). "提高我国学术社交网络的国际传播能力——基于ResearchGate与"科研之友"等的比较研究" [Improving the International Communication Capabilities of China's Academic Social Networks—a Comparative Study Based on Researchgate and "Scholarmate"]. 科技与出版 [Science-Technology & Publication] (in Chinese) (7): 26–32. doi:10.16510/j.cnki.kjycb.2018.07.006. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Tsinghua University Press.
    The abstract notes: "文章选取Research Gate和我国"科研之友"等作为案例进行比较研究,发现我国学术社交网络在定位、运营与发展上存在一些问题,如缺失全球化的运营理念与发展定位;用户规模和用户的国际化程度较低且用户的黏性不够;内容生产缺乏有效的激励机制和激励手段等。针对这些问题,提出一些对策建议。"
    From Google Translate: "The article selects ResearchGate and China's "ScholarMate" as cases for comparative study and finds that there are some problems in the positioning, operation and development of China's academic social networks, such as the lack of global operation concepts and development positioning; user scale and user characteristics. The degree of internationalization is low and user stickiness is not enough; content production lacks effective incentive mechanisms and incentives. In response to these problems, some countermeasures and suggestions are put forward."
  3. Liu, Xianhong 刘先红; Li, Gang 李纲 (2016). "科研社交网络的推荐系统对比分析" [Comparative Analysis of Recommender Systems of Research Social Networking Service]. 图书情报工作 [Library and Information Service] (in Chinese). 60 (9). Chinese Academy of Sciences: 116–122. doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2016.09.016.
    The abstract notes: "This paper compares the recommender systems of four research social networking services of ResearchGate, Academia, Scholarmate and Scholat, from four aspects of recommending item, recommending strategy, cold start scheme and user preference learning method. [Result/conclusion] It finds that the recommender system of research social networking service of China has a obvious gap compared with foreign counterparts in above aspects. The problems include the fewer recommending items, insufficiency recommending strategies, poor effects of cold start, and weak abilities of user preference learning. Finally, it puts forwards some measures to solve these problems."
    The article notes: "2007 年正式上线的科研之友，虽然规模要小于 ResearchGate 和 Academia，但目前注册会员也达到250万之多 ... 科研之友和学者网则是我国两个典型的科研社交网络。本文选取这4 个科研社交网络，从推荐项目、推荐策略、冷启动方案和用户偏好学习4个方面进行对比。... 我国的科研之友有一个“同行专家”推荐服务，从其提示语“根据您的个人信息推荐的专家”可以清楚地知道该服务的作用，但笔者在多个不同的时间经多次调整个人信息，推荐结果始终显示“没有符合条件的专家记录”;“发现群组”“学术期刊”“科学基金”这3 个推荐项目也存在同样的问题。这说明科研之友的推 ...""
    From Google Translate: "ScholarMate, officially launched in 2007, although smaller in scale than ResearchGate and Academia, currently has 2.5 million registered members... ScholarMate and Scholat are two typical scientific research social networks in my country. This article selects these four scientific research social networks and compares them from four aspects: recommended projects, recommendation strategies, cold start solutions and user preference learning. ... Our country's ScholarMate has a "Peer Expert" recommendation service. From its prompt "Experts recommended based on your personal information" you can clearly understand the role of this service, but the author has experienced it many times at many different times. After adjusting personal information for this time, the recommendation results always show "No qualified expert records"; the same problem also exists in the three recommended projects of "Discovery Group", "Academic Journal" and "Science Fund". This shows that the recommendation of friends of scientific research...""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ScholarMate (Chinese: 科研之友) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need assessment of whether new sources located help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources provided by User:Cunard establish notability. Marquisate (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M1NT

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much in terms of refs on the page, nothing much other than run-of-the-mill opening/closing announcements found JMWt (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and England. JMWt (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage, mostly PR bits. I don't think closing an outlet in Shanghai makes them notable. The last AfD a dozen years ago doesn't seem to make sense now... Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "A-listers club together to make a mint". The Daily Telegraph. 2005-11-13. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Investors include Steve Coogan, the comedian, Mark Blundell, the Formula 1 driver, Ilaria Bulgari, scion of the fashion empire, Robin Saunders, the banker, Sebastian Sainsbury, a member of the supermarket dynasty, and nine of London's 44 resident billionaires. The net worth of individuals on the share register is a whopping £38bn. Non-shareholding members include Val Kilmer, Liz Hurley, the actors, Shane Warne and Kevin Pietersen, the cricketers, Bruce Buck, the chairman of Chelsea Football Club, Laura Parker Bowles, the step-daughter of Prince Charles, and David Reid, the chairman of Tesco. Most are keen to invest. Prince William has also reportedly expressed an interest in investing although his exact status is a well-kept secret. And Lachlan and James Murdoch, the sons of media tycoon Rupert, are known to have made several bookings at the club."
2. He, Min 何敏 (2008-11-12). "异想天开的富豪俱乐部" [The whimsical rich club]. 名牌 [Mangazine] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via Sina Corporation.
  This is an extensive profile of M1NT. The article notes: "这就是香港的M1NT俱乐部，推门进去便是高达九米的、由施华洛世奇水晶制成的枝形吊灯，如一束光的瀑布倾泄而下，昂贵的艺术品装饰了墙壁和玄关，恰到好处的Jazz，身价不菲的香槟和烈酒，还有精致美貌的女子婆娑其间……M1NT的夜晚是香港社交圈的缩影，李泽楷、霍启山、万宝宝等人都是M1NT香港的股东及会员，在M1NT开幕的时候曾经亲临现场，并且出手阔绰。显然，M1NT的“投资式富豪俱乐部”的理念更能吸引年轻的“富二代”，以李泽楷为代表的香港及大陆的名门巨贾都喜欢来这个外表低调、内里奢华，同时又能表达自己的主人身份的俱乐部。"
  From Google Translate: "This is the M1NT club in Hong Kong. When you push the door, you will see a nine-meter-high chandelier made of Swarovski crystals, pouring down like a waterfall of light. Expensive artworks decorate the walls and entrance, which is just right. Jazz, expensive champagne and spirits, as well as exquisite and beautiful women... M1NT's night is the epitome of Hong Kong's social circle. Richard Li, Eric Fok [zh], Wan Baobao [zh] and others are all shareholders and members of M1NT Hong Kong. I was there in person when M1NT opened and spent a lot of money. Obviously, M1NT's "investment-style rich club" concept is more attractive to the young "rich second generation". Rich and wealthy businessmen from Hong Kong and mainland China, represented by Richard Li, like to come to this club with a low-key appearance and luxurious interior, where they can express themselves at the same time. The owner of the club."
3. Mccord, Mark (2006-05-17). "Exclusive club would have Bond shaken and stirred". Mail & Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "As the drinks are served the back wall lifts slowly to reveal a huge aquarium dominated by a hammerhead shark. It’s no accident that the prospect of a night at M1NT, the exclusive members’ bar due to open in Hong Kong in September, sounds uncannily like a night in the high-tech lair of one of movie spy James Bond’s villains. ... With 25-million Hong Kong dollars (more than $3-million) earmarked for the project on the fringe of the downtown business district, M1NT Hong Kong promises to be the most technologically dazzling bar in Asia."
4. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Three years ago, the members-only club M1NT was London’s talk of the town. Billed as the world’s first club in which members could own shares, M1NT quickly became known as the place where nouveau riche and old money rubbed shoulders, with members reportedly including Val Kilmer and Laura Parker Bowles. ... But the club persevered, relocating to Mayfair and more recently opening locations in Hong Kong and Cannes."
5. Crawford, Barclay (2009-12-19). "Conflicting versions of the reason for departure of M1NT entrepreneur". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Nightclub entrepreneur Alistair Paton, who once battled celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey over his London establishment, has left Hong Kong for good. Paton (pictured, far right) arrived in the city and launched members club M1NT on Hollywood Road, Sheung Wan, with Andrew Lewis (also pictured) in November 2006. But those close to the club say relations between Paton and others involved in M1NT, including many members and shareholders, have soured over the months. 'It was a business decision,' one of them said."
6. Tacon, Dave (2014-06-22). "Nothing exceeds like excess". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-06-27. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "The Shanghai Club's modern incarnation is M1NT, launched in 2009 on the 24th floor of a building just back from the Bund. Founded by Australian former merchant banker Alistair Paton (who also opened and closed M1NT venues in London and Hong Kong under controversial circumstances), M1NT proclaimed itself "the world's first shareholder's club". ... With about 15,000 customers per week and partnerships with numerous luxury brands – the club had a formula one racing car delivered by crane to hang from its ceiling for one event – M1NT had navigated the treacherous waters of China's hospitality industry with little trouble. That was until Paton made it known that the club was for sale earlier this year."
7. Ryan, Colleen (2008-12-30). "Let's get this party started". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Paton has brought his formula for a private member-shareholder club, M1NT, across the South China Sea from Hong Kong and spent more than $8 million turning the top floor of a new office building near the Bund into a club the size of four soccer fields. Within a few weeks of opening, M1NT had launched the new Ferrari and showcased the Porsche 911. Both times, cars were taken by crane 24 storeys up to be displayed in the middle of the club. The Mayor of Shanghai turned up for the opening night, a rare distinction for a Western nightclub in this city. ... Paton failed with his first club in London but has been enormously successful in Hong Kong, where M1NT is Krug champagne's biggest customer in Asia."
8. Cavaliere, Patrizio (2020-08-07). "Opulent Shanghai Hotspot M1NT Mysteriously Shuts Down. Pandemic related economic challenges are a likely cause, but does this signify the end or a new beginning?". Mixmag. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "The club was originally opened by Alistair Paton in 2004, who opened the first M1NT in London's mega-affluent Knightsbridge. It was acquired by the Hong Kong-based Sino Group in 2014, who operate an array of venues across China, so there is a distinct possibility that M1NT will return in one incarnation or another."
9. Crawford, Barclay (2008-04-20). "M1NT's HK investors fret after London axe". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "M1NT London opened in a blaze of publicity in 2005, claiming a long list of celebrities as members. The original venue closed after a dispute between Mr Paton, the young Australian founder, and celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey. Hong Kong's M1NT opened in November 2006, with rumours of a prominent celebrity shareholding and membership. Mr Paton has claimed the closure of the London club was due to his landlord going into liquidation and the firm's decision to focus on Asia."
10. "Alistair Paton, making a Mint in Shanghai". Shanghai Daily. 2009-01-04. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Paton, 30, is the driving force behind the entity's restaurant and club facilities on the 24th floor of its own branded high-rise building on Fuzhou Road. It is the newest business in a global group with operations also in Hong Kong, Cannes and Beijing. Mint Shanghai has been trading for six weeks from a standing start on May 16, which is why Paton is exhausted."
11. Wozniak, Lara (2006-05-12). "Club M1NT invites Hong Kong's hippest to invest". FinanceAsia. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Consider the original M1NT London. Opened 18 months ago, it is billed as "the hottest and most successful private members club in London, which counts celebrities, billionaires and royalty among its members". Do a Google Search and you'll find pictures featured in OK! magazine of beautiful people. The Financial Times more sedately described it as ôAn indulgence that will make you money". The Hong Kong version is opening in September in a 4,500 square-foot venue on Hollywood Road. M1NT Hong Kong has secured a ten-year-lease on the property from Henderson Land Development who will announce the actual location in about one month. But expect 14-metre ceilings, a mezzanine and water-motifs that will feature oh-so-appropriately for Hong Kong, a shark tank. There's already a 1,200-person-long list of applicants. Most will be turned away."
12. Walsh, Dominic (2006-07-12). "Gordon Ramsay shuts club over rent arrears". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "M1NT, the trendy Knightsbridge club that claims its membership includes “nine billionaires alongside Hollywood’s A-list”, has been abruptly shut down by Gordon Ramsay, its equally famous landlord."
13. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported. One insider said: “The list I saw has nobody of note. They may have been sent the marketing literature, but they didn’t join.” Separately, I’ve heard Gordon Ramsay, the feisty chef who owns the club’s leasehold, has fallen out with Paton over alleged rent arrears."
14. A new high-class club opens in Shanghai (Video journalism). Associated Press. 2015-07-21. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via YouTube.
  The video notes: "This is club M1NT which recently opened in Shanghai."
15. "名家筆陣：夜場高風險" [Famous writers: high risk in nightclubs]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "那些年，一家名為M1NT的夜店在○四年於倫敦開幕。創業家Alistair Paton曾在澳洲悉尼當外匯交易員，幾經轉折變了夜總會班主，由倫敦轉戰亞洲，○六年在荷里活道街尾，一個優皮一族屋苑樓下，開了家為中環人而設的會籍制夜總會M1NT，賣點之一是內裏有個很大的鯊魚缸可供欣賞，也有貌美接待員。"
  From Google Translate: "In those years, a nightclub called M1NT opened in London in 2004. Entrepreneur Alistair Paton once worked as a foreign exchange trader in Sydney, Australia. After several twists and turns, he became a nightclub owner. He moved from London to Asia. In 2006, he opened a restaurant in Central at the end of Hollywood Road, downstairs of a Yuppie housing estate. One of the selling points of M1NT, a membership-based nightclub designed for people, is that there is a large shark tank for viewing and there is also a beautiful receptionist."
16. Greene, Lucie (2006-05-14). "Private Clubs: Cocktail empire: The British are coming. From NYC to Cannes, who better to run a venue where exclusivity is mixed with snobbery and style? Lucie Greene on the clubs luring stars to the bars". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2008-05-07. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "THE vibe: money. Indeed the whole Mint enterprise (or M1NT, as they say) is based on cash. The first 250 memberships bought shares in the club which made the buyers the owners. The same masterstroke is taking place in Hong Kong. It has been said that among the first Chelsea members there were nine billionaires. You can also expect to see lots of glam women. Well, maybe we'll join after all. They also achieved some publicity by turning down an application from the Beckhams."
17. "M1NT上海顶级私人俱乐部 (1)" [M1NT Shanghai top private club (1)]. Vogue (in Chinese). 2010-08-18. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "M1NT将这个模式在香港和戛纳成功推广，其中2006年在香港开幕的M1NT俱乐部获得了巨大成功，全年收入超过财政预期，股东分得了15％的分红，股价在第一年内上涨了80％.而2007年的M1NT戛纳俱乐部聪明地选择了在5月的戛纳电影节开幕，好莱坞明星和导演等1500多人参与了这场盛会。"
  From Google Translate: "M1NT successfully promoted this model in Hong Kong and Cannes. The M1NT club opened in Hong Kong in 2006 was a huge success. The full-year revenue exceeded financial expectations, shareholders received a 15% dividend, and the stock price rose by 80% in the first year. The 2007 M1NT Cannes Club wisely chose to open at the Cannes Film Festival in May. More than 1,500 people including Hollywood stars and directors participated in this event."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow M1NT to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, time to assess some new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This AfD has been refbombed with 17 references where selected quotes are displayed but notably, omitting the parts which show that the article is either based on interview/quotations or merely commentary about the club or owner and not the company. Not a single reference meets NCORP, they are all based on regurgitating company announcements and PR. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources contain plenty of independent reporting about M1NT including critical analysis:
1. Crawford, Barclay (2007-01-07). "M1NT conditions". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-29. Retrieved 2024-02-29.
  The article contains a lot of critical coverage of M1NT. The article notes: "While the club opened to a rush of publicity in November - including speculation about possible celebrity shareholders and members - the city's sparkle may have faded slightly for the 28-year-old Australian following accusations from several of his investors he has kept them in the dark, barred a billionaire for being too old and even mistreated nine black-tipped sharks.
  The article further notes: "M1NT in Hollywood Road may have been open for only two months but already senior staff have quit, including the membership manager, lounge manager and Mr Paton's executive assistant. ... There has been a lack of big-name celebrities or prominent businessmen signing up. Staff of PCCW chairman Richard Li Tzar-kai at one time frantically hit the phones to try to get the Chinese papers to retract the claim their boss was a member. There has also been criticism of the club's feature of a tank with nine black-tipped sharks, which are subjected nightly to booming music. ... Shareholders' concern about the flow of financial information stems from the fact many are far from the wealthy elite M1NT claims to attract."
2. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article contains critical coverage of M1NT. The columnist discusses the loss of three chairmen in under a year because each was said to be "uncomfortable with Paton's management style". The columnist said Paton "needs to get on with those he hires" to manage M1NT. The columnist includes critical commentary about the club, "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported."
3. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article includes negative coverage of M1NT, "But not all went smoothly for M1NT and its brash young founder, former trader Alistair Paton. The club’s original location, on Sloane Street, closed in summer 2006 after the building’s landlord (a company owned by Gordon Ramsay) claimed M1NT had fallen behind on its rent. And some of the boldface names identified as M1NT members—Elizabeth Hurley among them—told the press they’d never set foot in the place."
4. Mixmag, a British magazine, discussed how the Shanghai nightclub M1NT closed. The article discusses the club's history and characteristics and notes that the club closed. The article notes, "We reached out for an interview but so far haven't received a response".
The Wikipedia article's topic is the M1NT nightclubs in London and Shanghai, not the company M1NT Global Holdings that once owned the nightclubs.
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The topic is the business, the company, and the topic is described about it being a nightclub business. You're familiar with GNG/NCORP requirements already. Looking at the references you've listed just now:

South China Morning Post article relies entirely on information provided by Alistair Paton and what he refers to as a "whispering campaign" by anonymous sources and town gossip and contains next to zero information about the company and certainly nothing that can be considered as in-depth. The "critical coverage" you're referring to in the article concerns, for the most part, the gossip/rumours about Mr. Paton and elements of the club. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
Times article is a total of 10 sentences and is also relying on unidentified "moles" and is nothing but gossip. This is not in-depth information or any type of analysis for the purposes of establishing notability, fails NCORP and ORGIND
W Magazine reference is also only 10 sentences and is also mostly gossip about members and reasons for relocation and relies on quotes from Paton. Not in-depth, not about the company, also fails NCORP.
Mixmag reference is yet another 10 sentence piece, mostly speculation about why the Shanghai club closed. There is no in-depth information on the company, no analysis/fact checking/whatever and is useless for the purposes of establishing notability. Fails CORPDEPTH.

"Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability, nor mentions in gossip columns, nor articles based on unidentified "moles" nor articles regurgitating Mr. Paton. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you love WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources above that found by Cunard are really sinificant sources contain plenty of independent reporting about the subject. How much do you need. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per sources found by respected editor Cunard. No matter how WP:IDONTLIKE (Redacted) here. I choose you keep. Thanks 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your contributions to topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China, including your detailed research at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liuyang fireworks. Regarding this AfD, you have made strong arguments about how the sources are significant and independent. I recommend focusing on discussing the sources instead of editors since the closer will give sourcing-based arguments much greater weight. Cunard (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources notes: "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." The sources I quoted above are not "gossip". They show "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking". That the articles include quotations from people affiliated with M1NT does not render the entire articles non-independent. There is enough independent research and analysis to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience notes: "The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability."
The M1NT nightclubs in Hong Kong, London, and Shanghai received international coverage:
1. Australia: Australian Financial Review and The Sydney Morning Herald
2. China: Shanghai Daily, Vogue Chinese, and 名牌 [Mangazine]
  - Hong Kong: FinanceAsia, Oriental Daily News, and South China Morning Post
3. South Africa: Mail & Guardian
4. United Kingdom: The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Mixmag, and The Times
5. United States: Associated Press and W
Non-notable nightclubs do not receive significant coverage in five countries.

The sources were published in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2020. Non-notable nightclubs do not receive sustained significant coverage over a period of 15 years.

Cunard (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the *topic company* must be the subject of in-depth reporting. The *topic company* is not any of the nightclubs. None of the references pointed out by Cunard meets the requirements as set out in GNG/WP:NCORP for the simple reasons that they're either not about the topic company, or they are unsubstantiated rumours or they rely on information provided by the people connected with the company. This is very obvious to anyone who reads any of the references. Notability is not derived from a quantity of poor gossip-driven coverage over a sustained period of time. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well said!! Who care? 1.46.91.225 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy business opens, then closes during the pandemic. Initial burst of coverage, then they closed. I don't see long-term notability, sourcing is mostly primary as above, or non-notable business things. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, leaning towards delete. Seems to be a flash in the pan, with only rumors and primary info serving as sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are publications from five countries. The sources were published in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2020. This is over a period of 15 years. How is this "a flash in the plan"? How is this not "long-term notability"? Cunard (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said by @HighKing, the sources you provided are either not about their company, but rather their clubs, or about rumors. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in my analysis of the sources presented, I don't think this meets the the notability threshold for WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I'm relying on guidance from WP:Identifying and using primary sources and I'd want to point to § Examples of news reports as primary sources. Given the coverage and the over-reliance on interviews or simple coverage of business events as oppose to the business itself in-depth vs the location in others, put together, I don't think this passes muster. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo Dental & Orthodontics

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

WP:CORP, not yet notable. In a WP:BEFORE search, the only coverage I could find in secondary sources was inclusion in a Fortune "Impact20" list [15], press releases, puff pieces on dentistrytoday.com (for which I can't find evidence of editorial oversight), and a "sponsored content" piece on a local FOX affiliate [16]. The inclusion on the Fortune list, along with the local magazine awards for "Top Dentist" in Fort Worth, is about it for reliable, independent, secondary coverage so far, and I don't think that alone brings it up to WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Texas. Wikishovel (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's always a concern when the author creates an account for the sole purpose of adding a single article MNewnham (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with MNewnham, very strange for a new account to suddenly create a page in one go. As for the sourcing, it is limited with one reference directly from Rodeo & another that is a press release. Another two references only highlight awards/recognition. Not enough comprehensive coverage from third party references.--Porcinipal (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esprit Lodge

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

I cannot find WP:CORP level of notability for the hotel or the rafting company. They exist, and the fire was in the news, but nothing lasting. Likely copypasta "Students from around the world travel here to learn" but it's an old article and I cannot find the source. Note, significant false positives in a BEFORE thanks to the CLub Med rebrand using espirit. Star Mississippi 20:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text of this article does sound like it was culled from a brochure. MNewnham (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Travel and tourism, and Canada. Star Mississippi 20:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Fletcher, Katharine; Fletcher, Eric (1999). Quebec: Off the Beaten Path. Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 102. ISBN 0-7627-0276-1. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Return to Route 148 from the chutes; turn left, then right after about 1 kilometer, toward Davidson. Go through this old lumber town and find the lane to Esprit Rafting on your left. From April through October, you'll find Jim and Erin Coffey primed and ready to pitch you into the heady world of river adventure. (Call, year-round, 800-596-RAFT for information, or contact Esprit at Thomas Lefebvre Road, Davidson, Québec JOX 1R0; camping is $15; hostel dorm is $20). Whether it's a canoe trip on the Noire (Black), Dumoine, or Coulonge Rivers, whitewater rafting on the Ottawa, a kayaking or swiftwater rescue course—or simply a camping spot or hostel bed—the Coffeys will make absolutely sure you have an unforgettable experience. Jim won't let you forget to take in the sunset from the back deck or the rocky beach. Jim and Erin are the real thing: They have sustainable ecotourism as their honest-to-goodness goal. We've traveled with them down the Ottawa and also on one of their Mexican trips. We recommend them highly."
2. Hale, James (2007). Frommer's Ottawa (3 ed.). Mississauga, Ontario: Wiley. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-470-84035-1. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Esprit Rafting. Offering day trips and longer-stay outdoor adventure packages, Esprit Rafting operates on the Ottawa River about 11⁄2 hours by road from Ottawa; the company can arrange transportation between Ottawa and the rafting site. They offer a wide range of adventure packages, including white-water rafting, white-water canoeing, white-water kayaking, and riverboarding. You can add horseback riding, mountain biking, or a bungee jump to your package. Esprit offers a great family white-water experience. In the morning, the family (children must be age 7 or older) rafts together with the assistance of an experienced guide. In the afternoon, children under age 12 take part in supervised shore activities while parents and children over age 12 take a more adventurous trip through the rapids. The day trip meets at a rendezvous point along the highway; get directions when you call to make your reservation. Overnight accommodation can be arranged at Esprit's private 2-hectare (5-acre) peninsula on the Upper Ottawa River, where camping facilities (tent and sleeping bag rental) and a hostel provide a place to sleep. There is a lodge serving meals, and activities include kayaking, canoeing, volleyball, and mountain biking."
3. Karr, Paul (2000) [1998]. Hostels Canada: The Only Comprehensive, Unofficial, Opinionated Guide (2 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 64–65. ISBN 0-7627-0616-3. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Situated on a beautiful five-acre point of land on the Ottawa River, this establishment's main business is whitewater rafting and tours. But the newly certified hostel is sure to be a welcome addition for travelers heading west up the river in search of adventure. The hostel consists of two buildings: a main building with the tour headquarters and hostel kitchen and showers, plus the actual accommodations (that is, the bunks) in a separate lodge. Rooms vary in bed size. A sitting room has facilities for game playing and a fireplace, too. You'll certainly spend lots of time outdoors here; the staff offers canoe trips, canoe rentals, kayaking lessons, water-rescue instruction, and (of course) the famous rafting runs. There's a small general store in Davidson for essentials and a few restaurants for budget-busting splurges. All in all, a laid-back place where you'll feel at home lounging around on the deck, snoozing in the hammock, walking among the pine trees, or fishing the river."
4. Fedio, Chloé (2016-05-21). "Esprit whitewater rafting lodge in the Pontiac destroyed in fire". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.
  The article notes: "Everyone got out of the almost century-old pine lodge safely but the building where Coffey started Esprit Rafting near Fort Coulonge, Que., 25 years ago was destroyed, he said. ... Once part of the timber trade on the Ottawa River, the building in the Pontiac region of Quebec was transformed into a gathering point for rafters and the greater community, with a restaurant, live entertainment and offices to run the business. ... Esprit Rafting, headquartered in Davidson, Que., about 120 kilometres from Ottawa, does whitewater rafting, canoe and riverboarding trips on several rivers, including the Ottawa River, the Gatineau River, the Magnetawan River, the Petawawa River, the Kipawa River and the Magpie River."
5. Fletcher, Katharine (1998-06-27). "The Adventure Zone. Three West Quebec tourism operators create build-your-own action getaways". Ottawa Citizen. ProQuest 240192156. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.
  The article notes: "Esprit is an accredited International Hostel, with new facilities. As with most hostels, the accommodation is spartan, but don't let that deter you. ... Want to try whitewater rafting down two channels of the Ottawa River? If so, Esprit Rafting of Davidson, Que., west of Fort Coulonge, is the only outfitter that runs both the middle and inside passages of the river. There's no reason to be nervous about rapids: you are in capable hands. Yet again, Esprit Rafting will represent Canada at the World Whitewater Championships this September in Costa Rica."
6. McHutchion, John (1996-09-30). "Rough water profit: Shooting rapids in Africa is one way a small Canadian firm is building business". Toronto Star. ProQuest 437533967. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.
  The article notes: "Jim Coffey's firm, Esprit Rafting Adventures, sent a squad of seven paddlers that placed sixth this month in an international rafting competition in Zimbabwe. And now the tourism entrepreneur aims to market his expertise to foreign countries that want to start their own river-rafting businesses. Several foreign countries have come calling on Coffey's base camp in Davidson, Que., about 150 kilometres north of Ottawa. ... Esprit rafts the Magnetawan River near Parry Sound, the Petawawa River and the Ottawa River. The company handles about 3,000 rafters a year. ... In addition to its domestic trips, Esprit has also gone international, running rafting expeditions in Mexico and bicycle trips in Vietnam."
7. Bruemmer, René (2010-05-15). "Looking for adventure? Canada offers wilderness tours for all tastes". Ottawa Citizen. ProQuest 241355752. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Esprit Rafting company. Ranked No. 1 for "Best Outfitters on Earth" by National Geographic Online, this Ottawa-Valley-based rafting company offers everything from one-day rafting trips on the Ottawa River to multi-day canoe excursions (anywhere from two to 10 days long). It also gives certification training, teaches riverboarding and surfing on the rapids."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Esprit to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always @Cunard for your research. I agree 6/7 are good. I do wonder if we have consensus anywhere about travel guide books and wehther they're sufficiently independent since so many are paid inclusion. Something to think about down the line if we don't. Star Mississippi 13:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Star Mississippi (talk · contribs). I consider travel guide books from reputable publishers generally to be sufficiently independent assuming that the travel guide book did not say they are being paid for including the company. And if they are being paid to include the company but did not disclose, then I would not consider them a reputable publisher. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Travel guides as sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Travel Guide discussed travel guides but focused more on what topics travel guides can be used as sources for rather than the independence and paid inclusion aspect. Cunard (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per Cunard, which is not a kind of !vote I usually like to make, but in this case they've done the exhaustive research and I have nothing further to add. Central and Adams (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balgzand Gas Plant

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Geography, and Netherlands. Skynxnex (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK, Extremely little of the content is actually about the gas plant. As this article is a huge failure even before examining notability, the delete is without prejudice on the topic. gidonb (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised there were not more sources for this, even the gas fields have more sources than this. I will cite lack of Reliable sources, Lack of Secondary sources. And add, that it's just an industrial facility. We probably don't want to have articles on every factory that exists.James.folsom (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Questionable notability with no secondary sources with SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Setting aside any concerns that are not in the purview of AfD, the consensus of the discussion is that the subject has not been shown to meet the WP:NCORP requirements. RL0919 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaveo

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY – a small, privately held company (LLC), occupying a small office somewhere in Utah and producing niche software. Article only includes affiliated references or ones that don't even mention the company's name, proving perhaps that the company exists but falling short of offering evidence of its encyclopaedic notability. Accounts of article creator and contributors have been alleged to be affiliated with the company. (Redacted) — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Utah. Skynxnex (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know about the creator of the article, or any of the other contributors, but I haven't ever been paid to work on the article. It's just found within one of many topics I find interesting (I've edited a fair number of river and lake articles over the years, and Aquaveo's software is used by a lot of people writing academic papers analyzing rivers and lakes). All of my contributions have been working to improve the article by adding references, removing marketing speak, and expanding it based on references I found (pretty much what I do for every other article I work on). As it stands right now, it's pretty much on the border of notability, and it could go either way. The Deseret News article is definitely a solid source. As the nom noted, most of the others are more informational references that (taken together) might push it over into notability, but also may not. So, I could go either way. If it is decided to delete the article, I'd request it be userfied so I can work on it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that being small, privately-held, in Utah, and producing niche software do not, in and of themselves, disqualify any company per WP:COMPANY. Those attributes are irrelevant to notability. As my previous comment noted, the only thing relevant is whether the company has been given significant coverage in multiple, third-party (independent) secondary sources. The Deseret News article is one such source. None of the others used in the article are likely helpful there. So, at least one additional such source would likely need to be found. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be asked whether Deseret, a single reference from ~~2016~~ 1999, is a sufficient evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability; especially that it... does not mention Aquaveo. I guess the argument will be that it's insufficient. Please note that this is an article about a company and its notability per WP:NCOMPANY, not about any of its products which may or may not be notable per WP:NSOFTWARE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Deseret News article talks about "Environmental Modeling Systems", which is a previous name of Aquaveo, as mentioned in the article here. "Environmental Modeling Systems" isn't a product, but a former company name. I made no comments about its products, so please don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm very well aware that notable products don't equate to notable companies. And I never argued that a single reference in DN is sufficient evidence to make Aquaveo notable (in fact, I said the opposite). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the 25-year-old article in local newspaper indeed mentions Environmental Modeling Systems, i.e., the business that was taken over by Aquaveo a decade later. Wikipedia still needs sources on Auqaveo specifically that would offer evidence of in-depth, lasting coverage of the company. Will you be able to find them? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, EMS wasn't taken over, but rather became Aquaveo since, as far as I can tell, everyone who was working with EMS went on to work at Aquaveo and EMS ceased to exist when Aquaveo started up. As for "Will you be able to find them?", it's not on only me to find sources. I'm not even arguing one way or another. However, as nominator, it's on you to do your due diligence to make sure there aren't any articles or other reliable, third-party sources that could be used in the article. I've already given you my thoughts (only the DN article helps toward establishing notability). Please stop harassing me, especially when I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: Please note that on the English Wikipedia, Harrasment is covered by policy. It is strictly defined and not necessarily synonymous with broader global English-language usage. If you think Kashmiri has harassed you, then WP:DWH applies; dispute resolution is suggested. Conversely, WP:AOHA also states that, Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory... It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment. So, moving forward, please lodge your accusations against Kashmiri at a noticeboard, or retract them as unfounded. Perhaps an apology is in order; your conscience must dictate. Happy editing! ——Serial 20:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Please note that on the English Wikipedia, writing a hostile comment and ending it with "Happy editing!" is considered by some^[who?] to be somewhat impolite. jp×g 🗯️ 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG We're having a case of an administrator who has for years edited while having an obvious COI, when finally caught avoided answering questions and baselessly accused others of harassment – and the only thing that you, a fellow admin, show concern about in all of that is that someone may not have been sufficiently polite to him? Seriously? — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: It's actually been something a lot of admins have been discussing for a little while now. Polite signatures can come off pretty badly when giving someone a warning despite being made with the best possible intentions. Some people, especially noobies or those who aren't familiar with a user with a signature like that, can take it the wrong way. That's all, not a big deal. My comments on the accusation you're making will be at the relevant board.

... Happy editing? Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, so one of those discussion about how to survive without offending someone somewhere? Damn this young generation... — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, yeah. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z – the Offended Generation. Good luck, man. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for "everyone who was working with EMS went on to work at Aquaveo and EMS ceased to exist when Aquaveo started up"? This needs verification and please see WP:BURDEN. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, As far as I can tell.... The few people mentioned as working at EMS in the DN article (and anything else I've found) also worked at Aquaveo when it first started. My comments certainly do not need sources as they are my own comments. WP:BURDEN applies to articles, not discussions such as this since I'm not claiming anything that needs any sort of proof. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ever been paid to work on the article @Nihonjoe: I don't think that was exactly the question. It's relevant to the outcome of the AfD, so I'm going to ask you directly: Are you, or have you ever been, employed by Aquaveo? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though not until well after I made the majority of my edits there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the dates, it appears I was mistaken in my remembering of when those edits were made. They were made shortly after I began working at Aquaveo, though (as mentioned before), I was never paid for making those edits or asked to make them by anyone at Aquaveo. Additionally, while WP:COI strongly discourages editing by those with a potential COI, it does not forbid it as long as the edits are done within the guidelines and policies governing editing of any article here. All of my editing of any article on Wikipedia is by my own choice and at my own whims. I haven't ever been paid to edit any article here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"by my own choice and at my own whims" and for your own benefit, because it's your own employer whose article you improved (from here to here), along with your employer's products, SMS, GMS, and WMS. Did you similarly improve articles about your employer's competitors and competing products? No? That's fine, you're totally allowed to, by your own choice and at your own whims, only improve articles about your employer and your employer's products, but as you know, you have to disclose it when you do that. And as you also know, it doesn't matter if your employer paid you or asked you, because you benefit from it either way. That's why WP:COI is not the same page as WP:PAID. Levivich (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it for my own benefit? I seriously doubt, given the niche category of software, that any of my edits have done anything to financially (or otherwise) benefit me or Aquaveo. In the time since my first edits there, I've edited thousands and thousands of times, and barely touched those articles. They were all created long before I had anything to do with them. All of my edits to them were trying to clean up the mess they were before I did anything there. I certainly haven't "only improve[d] articles about your employer and your employer's products" since my first edits there in 2015. Those adits likely aren't even 1% of what I've edited during that time. I seriously doubt any of the articles about Aquaveo or its products has helped them (or me) in any way). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, I don't believe someone with your level of experience and sophistication is unaware that a high-quality Wikipedia article helps boost a company's reputation, which helps boost a company's financials, which is good for the company's employees. By "only," I meant "only your employer and not their competitors," I didn't mean that this is the only thing you've done on Wikipedia. Anyway, I was happy to read your post at AN, thanks for that. Levivich (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming. Sort of dead end if the article ends up userfied... — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an off-wiki challenge of this timeline. You might want to revisit that, just in case. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this topic would be best discussed with @PhilKnight: or the arbcom email instead of on a public articles for deletion page. Sagflaps (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a general note, significant contributions to Aquaveo and related hydrology software WMS (hydrology software) have been made by @Edit42: and @42of8:, though it appears neither account is active. Sagflaps (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who those editors are. I have never edited as either of those accounts, I did not create either of those accounts, and I don't know who did. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe Would you be able to provide the approximate date when your COI started if you recall it? Thanks :) — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be digging into my personal life, thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I thought you'd prefer to assist the community in identifying edits made while having a COI, as this tends to work out better on Wikipedia long term, especially if accompanied by a plausible explanation or self-reverts. Ultimately, it's a question of trust in your judgment and words. But, naturally, don't feel compelled. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to scrutinize any of my edits. Outside of those when I first began editing in 2005 and was learning the ropes, I've done my best to be very neutral in all of them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. You surely know it's not about WP:NPOV (nor about WP:PAID) but about WP:COI. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userfy per Nihonjoe's request). The Deseret News source is decent, but I can't find any additional sources that I'd consider as contributing to notability. I've tried searching under all the company's previous names. Also tried searching newspaper archives; the only result was this passing mention (TWL access only). I'm open to reconsidering if better sources are found. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, which requires multiple significant and reliable sources. I tried looking under both company names and could not find any other than the Deseret News one. popodameron ⁠talk 22:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source potentially contributes to notability here and it's about another company that was taken over by the subject company. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SUSTAINED. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This deletion nomination is a proxy for taking action (be it no more than a warning or a slap on the wrist) for an editor holding advanced permissions allegedly doing undisclosed COI editing. This is unfortunate. My reading of the sources shown in the footnotes, without taking the first step onto the internet to sniff around, is that this is a GNG-pass. It is a well-constructed and useful piece as well. Let's not throw the baby out the window just because daddy may or may not have been less than forthcoming. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you alleging that this is a bad-faith nomination? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sure you believe what you believe and it is a close call. But it's clearly taking the form of a proxy for something else. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and merge the spin out articles here. This isn’t a hugely notable company, but it’s an academic spin out and there’s enough coverage of it and its products to make something of. We should at least try that first, rather than have teh dramahz. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the vast majority of content has been created by employees if off-wiki evidence is to be trusted. Who do you want to maintain this article for this micro business for which the last and only in-depth sourcing worth its name dates to 1999? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass NCORP and nobody has even tried to put forward NCORP sources. Levivich (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet NCORP, which is ultimately the only thing that matters in keeping this article in mainspace.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Comments supporting this article were made by sockpuppets of the article creator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Nuclear Energy

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

Completely press releases / GlobeNewswire. See Jay Jiang Yu as well. TLA (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. CptViraj (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Researching on the topic, Nano Nuclear Energy is dedicated to the development and supply of advanced nuclear microreactor technology. According to references, these microreactors are nuclear systems designed to provide clean energy. These are the references I just researched. https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/future-american-energy-production-must-include-nuclear. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/ODIN. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/idaho-national-laboratory-completes-pre-140000335.html.

Scientific equipment:

I was researching about the scientific advisors and nuclear engineering experts in said organization and this reference showed me the scientists who play in the strategic orientation and technological development of the company. https://nanonuclearenergy.com/nuclear-technical-team/ @I'm tla Kendry Antonio (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:@I'm tla @CAPTAIN RAJU. @CptViraj . Nano Nuclear Energy is an official member of the US Nuclear Industry Council (USNIC) and the Nuclear Institute organization based in the United Kingdom. It Was selected as a founding member of the U.S. Department of Energy's HALEU (High Assay Low Enriched Uranium). Eugenio Montilla (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article makes me suspicious. What does the company actually do? "Nano Nuclear Energy is a provider of microreactors and nuclear services". It has "nuclear" in its name; it makes microreactors, which aren't nuclear reactors though a careless reader might think they were; and it provides "nuclear services". Its executive advisors are politicians, not scientists. Maproom (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/EliteBrandRealm. TLA (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Entirely sourced to press releases. [17] is also a "contributor piece", paid advertising. Nothing in RS that isn't a paid piece. Delete for any sort of coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EBikeGo

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails the notability guideline for companies and the products section reads like promotional material. All of the coverage of this company seems to consist of trivial announcements (for example, product releases, funding, hiring, and acquisitions) in trade publications. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, India, and Maharashtra. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sbuject is notable accourding to WP:PSTS, other article are using same product section check Ather Energy, there might be some trivial articles but not all, there are my good sources attached to the article. Starcruexz (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcruexz: First, notability is not determined by PSTS. It is determined by WP:NCORP, the Wikipedia guideline for notability for corporations. Second, it would be helpful if you could provide three sources that you believe prove that this corporation is notable. Each of those sources should be (1) secondary, (2) independent of the company, and (3) reliable, and each source should (4) provide significant coverage of the corporation. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts pls check [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Starcruexz (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some more [27][28] Starcruexz (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any of these were cited in the article at the time of my nomination, I don't think they establish notability. For other sources, it would be helpful if you could summarize what each source says. You might try {{ORGCRIT assess table}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Nominators concerns appear equally about the (bad) article quality, the sources exceed routine coverage. IgelRM (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are about notability. I noted the promotional tone because I think that is often relevant in deletion discussions. For example, some users might !vote to speedy delete an article for being unambiguous advertising or promotion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of sources provided by Starcruexz below:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?
Financial Express	Seems to be based on press release/interview of company partnering with the article subject.	Routine announcement of business partnership.
Brands Equity	Interview published in a trade publication.	Routine announcement of brand partnership.
Economic Times Tech	Product announcement based on press release.	Routine product announcement.
India Today	Product announcement that appears to be based on a press release with no independent reporting or context.	Routine product announcement.
Economic Times Auto	Product announcement based on press release and quotes from company officials.	Routine company acquisition announcement.
Mint		The wrong source appears to be linked; this is a story about something completely unrelated. If the intent was to link to this story about a routine acquisition, I already noted in my nom that that source does not provide significant coverage.
Business Standard	Announcement of setting up manufacturing plant based on press release and quotes from company officials.	Routine announcement.
Mint	Appears to be based on press release.	Routine funding announcement.
EnergyWorld	Interview with company founder and COO.	Overview of what the company's plans are.
News18	Announcement of business partnership based on press release.	Routine business partnership.
Gadgets360	Announcement of manufacturing plant based on company press release.	Routine announcement.

To meet the notability guideline for corporations, there must be multiple sources, each of which must have significant coverage in independent and secondary reliable sources. Coverage is not significant if it is based on routine announcements and coverage is not independent if it is based on reporting that substantially repeats press releases (churnalism). None of the sources above meet those guidelines and I have not found any other sources that establish this company's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has a whopping 56 sources cited, and the above is just short of 20% of those sources (assuming that there are no repeat citations in the article). It is unlikely that the remaining sources cited in the article establish notability; just skimming through the list of references and looking at their titles and publications show that they appear to be largely routine announcements about some of the same events provided in the above sources). In any event, I note that the burden in a deletion discussion is on those arguing to keep an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a non-notable company and very likely the article is promotional: but whatever the case, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to assemble a large number of insignificant sources to make it look as if there's something worth noting here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources would you deem not "insignificant"? There are similar articles on Ola Electric and Ather Energy. IgelRM (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about article X is not a good argument at AfD. The existence of an article does not imply that a topic itself is notable. Those pages might also fail NCORP; Ather Energy has been tagged as promotional for 6 months. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page existence doesn't have in-depth, independent coverage about the "company" by the journalist. Major sources are all about launches, funding, and expansion. Lordofhunter (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all delete-votes, not notable. BoraVoro (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a good press campaign that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A lot of churunalism but nothing in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41@BoraVoro@Chiswick Chap@Voorts i will try to solve the issue and find and add some reliable source, meanwhile i would like to know that what is the meaning of significant covrage and indepentent souce ?, please send me some links from Ola Electric or any silimer article to understand your prospctive on significant covrage and indepentent souce.

significant covrage might be the issue but in my knowladge all the links that i have added is indepentent souce for exmple all the source in the above table is not directly related to eBikeGo. Starcruexz (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcruexz:, you are the second editor to bring up Ola Electric so hopefully you saw the previous response. Many of the links provided by those voting are what you will need to review. For instance, WP:NCOPR is the main guideline. You can review WP:ORGCRIT which will help you determine the proper sources to use and also WP:CORPDEPTH to understand the depth of coverage needed to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcruexz: I have an explanation of what I think significant coverage means in a user essay that I've written. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts Thanks let m check Starcruexz (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts i found some sources with mentions of EBikeGo on scholor, pls check [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Starcruexz (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcruexz: I am not your research assistant. It is your responsibility to explain why you think these sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12 and 13 are the same source, authored by an organization that "collaborates with industry" and EBikeGo is only mentioned once on page 8. 14 only mentions EBikeGo once on page 13. 15 is by the same people as sources 12 and 13, and EBikeGo is again only briefly mentioned once on page 100. 16 mentions EBikeGo twice on pages 65 and 67.

None of these contain significant coverage, which requires detailed discussion of the company.

In the future, please explain why the sources you are providing contain significant coverage. Posting links and asking others to do the work for you is not how AfD discussions should go. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Thomas Crowther (ecologist). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restor

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

Do not meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. B-Factor (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Switzerland. B-Factor (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas Crowther (ecologist). The reliable sources cited don't mention Restor, and the best actual coverage is probably in connection with the Earthshot Prize nomination, but none of it is really WP:SIGCOV. Verifiable enough, and enough mentions, to have at the section in the founder's page. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Crowther (ecologist) per A412. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No one is arguing for retention, nor is there any indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catabasis Pharmaceuticals

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

nn business, tagged for years - Altenmann >talk 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company was renamed in 2021, so I am adding a Findsources below for their current name below. AllyD (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: Whether as Catabasis Pharmaceuticals or more recently as Astria Therapeutics, my searches are not finding evidence that this company has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Quran News Agency

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

Been sitting here with an unaddressed one source and notability tags for 5 years, probably time to let this slip unless serious improvements are made or sources found. Koopinator (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything other than a few primary sources (all on its own site). LizardJr8 (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verified Market Research

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Many of the references used are trivial mentions of the company providing research to clients. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United Arab Emirates, Maharashtra, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep hm, I've found the additional sources online, and some are behind the paywall however they look promising in helping with the notability for this big market researcher. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to access a single report which provides in-depth information *about* the *company* - sure, they've published research, but that doesn't assist in establishing their own notability. Which "additional sources" talk about the company and meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Rather notable per GNG research company being sourced in lots of books and papers; some sources are also available in news and media like NYTimes, FAZ and other. --Lives between the lines (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links you added to the article just bring readers to a login page, and an account is required to go further. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately they are behind the paywall Lives between the lines (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - but which of those articles provide in-depth information *about* the *company* and meets NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mentioned company is significant and notable within its industry. It seems to meet the GNG, although the sourcing could be better. I have found coverage in a book I’ve just added in Review section. This book-source highlights the company's notability by giving a deep review and description on company. DraculaParrot (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single source mentioned (that isn't clearly PR ...) provide any in-depth information *about* the **company* and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Comment: Leaning toward Keep/No consensus. Despite few detailed sources, Verified Market Research's mentions in industry news and its recognition suggest it's important to keep. I would stick to this rule: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (NEXIST), as such organizations are usually covered in industry-printed materials not available in online magazines and books.

NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to point out that "mentions in industry news" fall a long way short of the type of sourcing we need to establish notability. Check out WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Also, I've access to a lot of different research material - can you provide any names of "industry materials" or whatever printed books/publications which might be worth checking out? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the NEXIST rule is really wise in similar cases as the company is the biggest in the Asia Pacific region, and not all sources are available in online databases. I personally usually find more information from physical books and libraries in many of my projects and research, so now I see why nexist rule was created. 149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful if those editors arguing to Keep addressed HighKing's questions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have seen comments about this meeting WP:GNG but nothing to support (and at least one failing to respond to further inquiry). This ultimately comes down to WP:ORGCRIT and I cannot find anything meeting this guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment as I mentioned before, the support for GNG or Sigcov is at least a book I added to the page and mentioned here within the discussion. That helps to establish the company as at least notable enough (as the biggest in Asia and biggest Asian focused market research company. DraculaParrot (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you examine the content against the correct guidelines (NCORP) - WP:CORPDEPTH? We know the company exists but the task here isn't to help "establish the company", it is to find sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. For that we require in-depth analysis of the company. How many sentences/paragraphs are devoted to the company in the book? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no sourcing applied, presented, or found which brings this article past WP:ORGCRIT or GNG. There are a fair number of relatively inexperienced editors making assertions, all coincidentally favoring keep in a generic way, none of whom has presented a single reliable source in this discussion. Then we have a wandering IP who jumps in to endorse the use of WP:NEXIST, suggesting we really don't need those pesky sources at all. This has the smell of sock farm and UPE all over it, and while I'm not making any specific accusations, I'm also not standing by idly. BusterD (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just crossed out my 'keep' vote. The company definitely does not meet the criteria for significance. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nemeton TV

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

I'm not seeing enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:ORGCRITE. While there's a fair amount of PR for this company floating around (e.g. [34]), significant coverage is scarce. The best examples I was able to find were this writeup of a university course that they sponsor and this article about their GAA coverage acquisition, which despite a promising title turns out to be almost entirely quotes directly from Nemeton's executives. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ireland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, Sports, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe the Nemeton TV is notable, however right not it's too related on primary sources and has lack of independent sources as said before. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research and added significant coverage from The Guardian source, along with some Irish local sources, though they lack significant coverage. Maybe Irish folks could help more. I think the page should be Kept. Johnpaul2030 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are some press releases online, and coverage on industry websites, as you might expect for a television production company that has been in that business for more than 25 years. As well as sponsoring some Royal Television Society Ireland and Scotland award categories, they had a nomination for Live Sport coverage at the RTS Scotland awards 2021. Beyond some of the online sports news articles that mentions Nemeton TV, there is some substantive press coverage which I have added to the article, for example the GAA streaming coverage in Waterford News & Star or the return of Live Action TV and celebrating 25 years both published by the Irish Examiner. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, current sources in the article pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Paradies Lagardère. If editors would prefer a different Redirect target article, that can be discussed on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hachette Distribution Services

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

I can't find sourcces sufficient for WP:NORG. Even this article (available through WikiLibrary), which is an analysis of Hachette's business strategies, just has a trivial mention in the data at the bottom that HDS exists, and no discussion of it as an entity. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and France. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ while there's a single source that it exists [35] I couldn't find any secondary sources for it to verify any information for a potential merge. Shaws username . talk . 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hachette (publisher) Shaws username . talk . 23:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Paradies Lagardère, which is its ultimate controlling company via the Lagardère Group. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Paradies Lagardère, hardly anything here and no citations.Maxcreator (talk)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Anne-Marie Losique. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image Diffusion International

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

nonnotable TV entertainment production company - Altenmann >talk 19:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Anne-Marie Losique MNewnham (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I am going to nominate her for deletion as well, after this one, together with her pornsite Dorcel TV Canada. - Altenmann >talk 02:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. Additional sources I found like Reuters are not reliable enough to change the situation. BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues with the article. 18Carlox32 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Arabic sources cited in the article look pretty good to me. The best English language sources I could find seem to be | an FAS fact sheet, | Global Security fact sheet, and | a Carnegie Middle East Center report on Egypt's military industrial complex which has paragraphs about this factory on pages 55 and 212. There are also plenty of mentions in routine and not fully independent coverage which don't help much for notability but can be used to source facts in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
those English sources are not good - as I mentioned, passing mentions. BoraVoro (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with the above Keep vote. The Arabic sources when used with Google Translate display articles that have a lot of info about the subject.Maxcreator (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources mentioned above do not meet the criteria as already been pointed out. Eluchil404 pretty much admits the sources are "fully independent" and "don't help much for notability". The arabic sources in the article are no better; one is a page displaying the logos of 23 companies with no in-depth information, another relies entirely on info provided by the company and the chairman, another is PR relating to a visit by a government minister, another reports on a meeting where the company attended for continued/increased government support. None of those sources meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My position is that the FAS, GS, and Carnegie Middle East Center sources I listed above are independent and substantial. The FAS and GS sources are basically copies of each other, but they are clearly independent of the company/the Egyptian government. They are fairly short. The CMEC source is again fully independent and has at least two paragraphs of coverage which I would condider substantial in this context, but others might not. My comments about sources lacking independence or significant coverage referred to other sources I found but did not list. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response The fact that the GAS and GS website pages are *identical* proves that at least one is not independent content. Can't be independent if its a copy. The FAS info is from 1999 and predates GS by 12 years so my guess is GS is the copy. The GS info is a total of 5 sentences. Inadequate to meet WP:NCORP criteria. The last reference only appears to mention the topic company once, in passing, also not NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impala Hotel Group

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

Non-notable hotel/property chain. all references provided are promotional, commercial, and/or branded content. No sign of independent sigcov. Jdcooper (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Top Arusha hotels may go under the hammer over huge bank debts". The Citizen. 2019-04-04. ProQuest 2202724275. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "Dar es Salaam. The curtain could be falling down on the once high-flying Impala Hotel Group of Arusha as two of its hotels are up for sale over huge debts owed to banks. ... Among the properties up for sale is the 300-room luxurious Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge outside Arusha and Impala Hotel, the group’s flagship outfit within the city. Officials of the hotel chain owned by the late Meleo Mrema, who died in August 2017, could not be reached to speak on the matter. The 160-room Impala, which opened its doors in the early 1990s, was once the leading hotel in Arusha, thanks to closure of the ‘old guard’s for major rehabilitation.This was to be followed ten years later (in early 2000) by the five star Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, some 27 kilometres east of Arusha.The lodge was famous for hosting many high profile international and regional conferences, including at several East African Community (EAC) Heads of Summits."
2. Ubwani, Zephania (2021-09-12). "Impala, Naura Springs hotels assets for sale over Sh1.2 billion debt". The Citizen. ProQuest 2571570534. Archived from the original on 2021-09-22. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "Finally, properties belonging to an Arusha hotel chain will be sold to settle accumulated debts running into billions of shillings. ... The two hotels, once among the leading outfits in the country’s safari capital, belonged to the Impala Hotels Group owned by the now late Meleo Mrema. ... The saga over accumulated debts by Impala Hotel Group such as accumulated salaries has dragged for years, roping in banks owned billions of shillings in unpaid loans. ... Properties belonging to the late Mrema once dominated the hotel industry in Arusha and were opened to cater for the increasing number of tourists and conference delegates years ago."
3. Nkwame, Marc (2014-07-21). "Tanzania: Arusha Is Not Burning, Hunt Down Rumour Monger". Daily News. ProQuest 1547175618. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16 – via AllAfrica.
  The article notes: "However, everybody in town knows that the legendary Impala Hotel is owned by one Mrema. So popular is the property that it spawned the 'Impala Group of Hotels,' a company which has 'Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge,' and 'Naura Springs Hotel,' under its portfolio. Like their owner, the three properties, despite their fame, have succeeded in staying out of the media limelight, with the exception of the 2008 incident in which Ugandan pop star Jose Chameleon fell from the third floor room at Impala hotel and broke his limbs. Opened in 2003, the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, located within the former Ngurdoto Forest Coffee farm in Meru District, is arguably the biggest hotel in Tanzania with over 3,000 rooms, many being detached luxury 'huts' and while the property has been hosting many international symposiums and meetings, it hasn't made any headlines in over a decade of its existence. Then comes the 'Naura Springs Hotel' situated at the Sanawari junction along Moshi-Arusha road, which went into operation in 2007 thus becoming the newest property under Mr Mrema's property listing."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Impala Hotel Group to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the article above, the hotels have been closed (and are still closed) since 2019. A part has been turned over to student accommodation. An attempt has been made to sell the hotels to settle debts, seemingly unsuccessfully. All of the issues noted above seem WP:ROTM for a privately owned hotel chain. MNewnham (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says, "A company ... is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The guideline does not say "Run-of-the-mill" is a reason for deletion. And it is incorrect to call Impala Hotel Group "run-of-the-mill".
The Impala Hotel Group is based in the East African country of Tanzania. The company received sustained significant coverage over a period of five years (2014, 2019, and 2021). It received significant coverage in 2014 in the Daily News, a national newspaper in Tanzania. It later received significant coverage in 2019 and 2021 in The Citizen, a South African newspaper that is considered the country's newspaper of record. A South African national newspaper covering a Tanzanian company is international coverage of the company. A "run-of-the-mill" company does not get sustained and international coverage. Cunard (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary; businesses being closed should have no bearing on their notability. Reading the sources indicates that, far from being routine, independent sources consider these to be particularly important hotels in the country, "Tanzania’s hospitality paradise, the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, which used to draw many international visitors to the country’s northern tourist circuit", "The lodge was famous for hosting many high profile international and regional summits". Besides Cunard's sources, [36], [37], [38], and substantial references in travel guides to the country. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources. Seems significant enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be sufficient sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Aram Mnatsakanov. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probka Restaurant Group

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Some coverage, but not enough. Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Aram Mnatsakanov as he's primarily notable for this group. Examples how they're discussed in the sources togeter: 1, 2 --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a promotion of non-notable enterprise. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Aram Mnatsakanov - seems like the most logical decision as per WP:ATD. As it stands, this topic has no independent notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 21:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant Labs

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

Subject does not meet WP:NCORP. Macbeejack ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Singapore. Macbeejack ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said elsewhere, I added categories to it and linked to it elsewhere on Wikipedia. That should satisfy two criticisms.

Besides that, it's worth pointing out that the three sources are major outlets. It's not quite scientific, but that seems like it establishes a reasonable basis for being notable. It's also supported by major investors, although I didn't add those in - not yet, anyway. I'm debating in my mind how to do it without being promotional.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ar-glasses-multimodal-ai-nets-140019767.html#:~:text=Since%20its%20inception%20in%202019,at%20Y%20Combinator%3B%20and%20others. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes at least WP:NPRODUCT, and probably WP:NCORP. Besides the Forbes (staff) and Axios articles already cited, The Verge [39], South China Morning Post [40]. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both The Verge and Axios weren't really about the company but the Forbes and South China Morning Post pieces are good and seem to satisfy WP:NCORP. Editing84 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references provided to date all rely entirely on interviews/quotes from company officials and other information provided by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Network Advertising Initiative

AfDs for this article:

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

This has some coverage and is borderline, but doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Deleted at 2008 AfD as non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of independent coverage; the current citations are misleading. A glance at the article's talkpage would explain that. There are nearly three dozen mentions from 1999 to present in the New York Times alone [41]. Here's a critique of the organization already used as a citation in the wiki article: [42]. Just because the article needs help doesn't mean it should be deleted. It was only deleted in 2008 because it was unreferenced. This organization is mentioned in a sizeable number of other wiki articles, including several court cases. In the age of targeted online advertising, the need for this wiki article seems more and more important. Persingo (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organization is definitely notable: it is an important part of the history of advertising industry self-regulation in the US, and the debates and criticisms around that. NAI is widely covered and referred to in mainstream press and academic literature, not just trade press and writing from privacy organizations. The article itself doesn't use as many of those secondary sources as it should; I can take some of the blame for that as I wrote much of this article's text in 2010 as a relatively new editor who had an academic's tendency to rely on primary sources. But the article should be made more current and cite those secondary sources, not be deleted. Npdoty (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could those editors advocating Keep bring some more sources into the discussion or add them to the article to address the nominator's concerns?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it typically required that editors have to go through the longer steps of making significant edits to an article just to avoid deletion of the entire article through this process? After a very brief search, I would likely add these two New York Times articles on the origination of NAI, and perhaps this 2011 New York Times blog post that reported just on a change of leadership of the organization, to the History subsection of the article.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/internet-companies-set-policies-to-help-protect-consumer-privacy.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/technology/online-privacy-remains-a-consumer-question-after-doubleclick.html

https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/online-advertising-group-hires-new-chief/

Npdoty (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be sufficient sources available here and more online that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The available sources seem to establish enough notability. popodameron ⁠talk 18:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'Sufficient sources have been provided and available in Google search. Maxcreator (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau County Sports Commission

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

Not notable. There are no sources liked in this article. Google turns up nothing relavant. Google Books only turns up trivial mentions. Scholar only turns up more trivial mentions as well as brief or passing mentions [...] of non-notable awards. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Sports. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing in JSTOR. Newspapers.com has many hits, but I only found local stories with casual mentions of the topic, or quotes from the topic. Fails GNG as far as I can discern. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seconded on all. ItsMoosher (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, PROD"d twice so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed WP:ATD: Redirect to Gary I. Wadler. --Habst (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether this page should become a Redirect or be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Don't see a redirect that makes sense here either, the one proposed here seems to me like it would be a WP:SURPRISE. Let'srun (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Let'srun, thank you for your vote. Why would it be a surprise? The redirect target was the president of the organization. Of course, there is always a possible redirect to Nassau County, New York as well. --Habst (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is what I was thinking, yes. Let'srun (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Squatch

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

Requested at WT:AFD. Rationale: The article reads like an ad, even after I removed a lot of stuff and rewrote it. It was significantly worse before, and reeked of self promotion. In addition to this the sources itself are a bit spotty. Not to mention the company itself isn't that notable aswell. NotAGenious (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NotAGenious (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article is in a state which is improvable and could probably meet guidelines with some editing. Endersslay (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably enough in the article, and these reviews of their soap [43], [44]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination 14.200.225.254 (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now, unless someone improves it, then I wouldn't object to keeping it 108.49.72.125 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should someone relist this again, or close this? its been around a week since someone last responded to this 108.49.72.125 (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I added some information and references. I think it's WP:GNG but could use more work. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA^tlak 07:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If somebody wants to use reviews of their soap as a measure of notability, this would go towards notability of the product, not towards notability of the company. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinion is divided. It would be nice to get an assessment of the article sources and anything else that has come up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

opinion still divided, relist again or close? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per table. Yes, two is the bare minimum needed, but this is just what I was able to most easily find. More generally, this is really not the type of company the stringent standards of WP:NCORP is meant to include; it has multiple products which meet GNG, and there are plently of genuinely independent (i.e. not reconstitued from press releases) primary sources to use for verification. Mach61 18:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
How Dr. Squatch reaches Gen Z men with offbeat humor on TikTok		subsidiary of Industry Dive		Detailed analysis of marketing strategy
Before Its Splashy Super Bowl Ad, Soap Startup Dr. Squatch Built A $100 Million Business		WP:FORBES staff, not contributor.		Analyzes years of company history, using various primary sources linked within

Response Thank you for the analysis but you need to correctly apply GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. The Marketing Dive reference says very clearly that the Marketing Dive was provided with company data and the article goes on to quote extensively from company sources. There is no in-depth "Independent Content" in this reference and it relies entirely on data/comments from the the company itself - fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes reference and also relies entirely on information provided by the company, both in a previous interview and in an email. Also fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing using primary sources is what defines a secondary source. The relevant criterion of ORIGIND states that it is meant to exclude sources which lack original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, which is applicable to both sources (the Marketing Dive source includes orignial analysis of TikTok as an advertising platform). Mach61 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be conflating the type of source (primary or secondary) with the quality of the content. You've reproduced a part from ORGIND. Immediately preceding that quote is another qualification such that we do not regard content which was initially created/produced/articulated by the company/execs/customer/related party that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:CORPDEPTH, whatever independent content exists in the article must *also* be provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the *company*.

The Marketing Dive article relies *entirely* on regurgitating the topic company's information and quotes and contains no in-depth information *on the company* which isn't sourced back to the company. You say it contains original analysis on TikTok as an advertising platform - two points, first this article isn't about TikTok, second all of the relevant TikTok information related to the company originated from the company as you can tell from the quotations.

I've also said why the Forbes article fails - pretty much the same reasons. In summary, it's a 16-sentence long puff profile mostly about the founder and includes only basic generic information on the company (mostly its funding). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest companies in Pakistan

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

~~I'm not sure if we need such a list when we have List of companies of Pakistan. Possibly redirect or delete. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of companies of Pakistan as lacking a clear selection criteria. BrigadierG (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is significant enough to have a stand-alone article for it. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Should be improved with more sources.Afus199620 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Should be improved with more sources" is true for every article on the project. I'm more interested in knowing what sources do exist that caused your opinion to Keep, Delete or Merge this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Fails WP:LISTN. 103.148.128.126 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeds

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

Non-notable consulting company. The only sources appear to be trade publications, and all of the reporting appears to be run-of-the-mill. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would expect to find more sources but there's just not a lot out there. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Article in present state is overly promotional and unencyclopedic with listing of office locations etc. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silvaco

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

100% of references are press releases, i.e., then don't ensure notability per our standards - Altenmann >talk 02:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I couldn't find anything about the company other than press releases, I found some coverage of their software in books: Modeling And Electrothermal Simulation Of Sic Power Devices: Using Silvaco© Atlas [45] is entirely about their software, Computational Electronics [46] and Introducing Technology Computer-Aided Design (TCAD) have significant mentions. [47] ~ A412 ^talk! 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, found some usable coverage of the company (and not just the software) [48][49] Mach61 (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Machine to machine. If you disagree with this redirect target article, please start a talk page discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M2Mi Corporation

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

All links on the page are dead. A WP:BEFORE found mentions but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Could possibly see this being a redirect to OASIS (organization). CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OASIS (organization): per nom. I found some coverage from Google books and scholars but unfortunately none of them seem significant enough 94rain ^Talk 05:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Machine to machine: M2Mi is not mentioned in the OASIS (organization) article so it doesn't make sense to redirect it there but they are mentioned at Machine to machine regarding the partnership with NASA. Pinging @CNMall41: and @94rain: for their thoughts about the target. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about OASIS. I looked closer ant it appears M2Mi helped developed the OASIS standard MQTT. That could also possiblty be a target after adding a mention of the company. Either way is fine as long as this page is gone as I do not see it being independently notable.--CNMall41 (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also fine with delete. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are two different Redirect target articles being proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IABOT was able to add archived versions of two of the article's references. When you are considering bringing an article with dead references to AfD, it is usually a good idea to run IABOT to try to salvage those references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Normally I'd opt for a redirect, but this company is not *connected* with either of the suggested redirect targets - it was a research company that participated in projects, but still an entirely separate company. There's also nothing to suggest it was influential in its field. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify A quick google search shows this article can eventually become notable, and there may be enough secondary sources to do so now. The way it currently is, it's not ready for mainspace. DarmaniLink (talk),

We need more information. What did you find in the Google search that showed the topic might/can eventually become notable?? As it is, this comment is an empty !vote with zero reasoning. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[50]https://thesiliconreview.com/magazine/profile/machine-to-machine-intelligence-m2mi-corporation-the-most-advanced-and-secure-m2m-iot-platform-provider - from 2021

[51]https://appel.nasa.gov/2010/02/28/ao_2-4_f_ames-html/ - from 2010

Looking at their website, they also had some brief mentions in tech magazines for awards, AFAICT. Unless there's something I overlooked, this could become notable. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those references are nothing more than company marketing. Silicon Review is a "magazine" where company's boast about themselves and their offerings, not reliable. This article doesn't even have a journalist mentioned. The other reference is a joint Press Release. Both of those references miserably fail WP:NCORP criteria. We don't write article for companies that "could" become notable, the test is that they are notable now or have been in the past. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HighKing's assessment. The Silicon Review is a trade publication and the article is a "profile" which is essentially what the company says about itself. Same for APPEL; it's a press release and contains statements about what they say they will do or what could happen (published in 2007, though the link uses 2010). S0091 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Machine to machine, learn something new every day. Good to know. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Companies proposed deletions

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Companies deletion==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FacilitySource}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lipcon, Margulies, and Winkleman}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BlinqIO}}