Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:34, 23 April 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Health Clubs - Orlando Sportsplex

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

Only mention in independent sources I can find are local papers discussing the facility's 2022 sale. Seems to fail WP:NORG. funplussmart (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Sports, Basketball, Ice hockey, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Travel and tourism. – The Grid (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appears to have been regular mentions of "RDV Sportsplex" in local news but I can't find anything beyond the usual namechecks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a single gym and a couple of ice rinks, nothing notable i can see. Desertarun (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bubang Techron Co.

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

fails general notability guideline. only source in article is completely unrelated to the subject (and looks like spam). search brings up databases. ltb d l (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and South Korea. ltb d l (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could not find anything on Google or Scholar beyond WP:ORGTRIV. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZPY-LP

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

Defunct low-power station. No secondary sources at all. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, Companies, and Oklahoma. AusLondonder (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching through google yields results that boil down to either listening to the station or information already included in the article. mwwv (converse) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct where it is already listed as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct: this is another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" still in place in this topic area as late as 2020 (a year before the 2021 RfC that made it clear that GNG and its requirements for significant coverage are the inclusion barometer). Outright deletion is not being outright opposed either; there simply isn't much to retain here, and it has only ever been sourced to the FCC database (which only establishes potential existence, which is neither notability nor the establishment of same). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct: Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund

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

Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. To put it mildly, they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo and their depth is about as shallow as a puddle in the Sahara. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dyras

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

No evidence of notability, nothing pops up in a WP:BEFORE in English and German. Broc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Germany, and Poland. Broc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Dyras website exists and has a link to a Dyras-branded catalogue from a company named Quad Star. I can't find any evidence of notability, though. The company was also known as The Global Electric Factory, but I can't find much related to that name. I can't reach http://www.theglobalelectricfactory.com/ , but here is an archive of the site from 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20210121140018/http://www.theglobalelectricfactory.com/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 April 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. There is consensus to not delete, but a split between keep and merge. This should be hashed out in a talk page merger discussion, not another AfD. Sandstein 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus USA

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

Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with Atlus. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability. IgelRM (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 03:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somewhat off-topic but the name in the lead was changed from "USA to "West" (as well as on the Atlus article), which does not appear to an official name. IgelRM (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can the keep editors give WP:THREE for those of us who don't want to slog through 77 (!) references? -- asilvering (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Thetechie: @Why? I Ask:. I mentioned relevant Game Informer article above, so maybe two? IgelRM (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, article passes WP:GNG smoothly. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, concur with others below, fails WP:THREE, see discussion on my talk Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~to Atlus~~. After (briefly) looking through the 77 sources and Google Books, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage of Atlus USA in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The article clearly has plenty of sources, but they're all trivial mentions (not significant coverage) or interviews (not secondary or independent), plus a few primary sources from Atlus. A few sources do border on significant coverage of Atlus, the parent company, but not Atlus USA, the subject of this article. The only source that is unequivocally significant coverage of Atlus USA is Game Informer, as mentioned above. Will gladly change my mind if anyone can point to two more sources that actually demonstrate SIGCOV. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberating a possible merge: History section (except staff section, which does not appear notable) to Atlus; Localization approach section (mostly about localizing SMT) to Megami Tensei; Publishing section and third-party list into an additional section on List of Atlus games. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me! Woodroar (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are free to merge whatever content they want to other articles but XFDcloser can only handle one Merge target article in closing a discussion. Would that be Atlus? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, yes; although merging most into Atlus doesn't appear feasible to me, so perhaps redirect to Atlus would be a more accurate AFD close while still preserving for future editors. IgelRM (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Functionally, a merge or redirect is the same result for the topic article. Just a matter of "review for mergeable content first" really. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've been going back and forth on this one, but Woodroar more or less said where I ended up. The GameInformer is a huge in-depth source, but as I went through the rest, I simply could not find anything else. A few passing mentions in relation to games ("And Atlus USA is translating" and the like), and many of the non-interviews/non-primaries seemed to not mention Atlus USA at all. Calls for the !Keeps to provide at minimum three are unanswered at this time. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just curious, is there policy/precedent for not spinning out regional branches like this? Nintendo of America for example doesn't have a standalone article even though it seemingly could. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument for or against deletion, I'm just wondering if there was some previous consensus on this. CurlyWi (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think ideally every single article is as comprehensive as possible, so I would need to ask why (maybe because of the section length?) and what a spin-out would improve. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The article doesn't have enough in-depth sources to exist on it's own, most articles are about the Japanese developer. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems quite notable per WP:NORG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind identifying the three best sources demonstrating notability for Atlus USA? Woodroar (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really really want to change my position, but no one has provided a single source other than Game Informer that shows in-depth independnent sigcov. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It currently fails WP:NCORP. I looked at the first block of references in detail and quickly looked at the second block. The first block is mostly made up of profiles with no byline, routine business news, PR and interviews with leading folk in the company, none of which passes WP:SIRS or WP:ORGIND. The second block is just equally as bad. It is completely non-notable. Possible small merge to main article, a sentence or two at most as they're is nothing to support anything bigger. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems notable, per WP:GNG, but not per WP:NCORP. I searched through articles about the company for about 30 minutes, I found a lot of articles about Sega's acquisition of the company, the parent company's bankruptcy, the CEO retiring, but nothing 'about' the company. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry but, as has been repeatedly requested... can you provide at least three such sources that show independent in-depth coverage of Atlus USA? Your !vote seems to indicate you found information on the parent company but couldn't find any further sources about this company? -- ferret (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A content fork, the refs are all trivial mentions. Desertarun (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Function Health

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

Thrice declined at AfC prior to acceptance. While the search is hard given health functions, a search combined with Hyman's name just brings more publicity and churnalism. I don't see the WP:SIRS depth of sourcing required for WP:CORP. A merger to Mark Hyman (doctor) might be possible as the only co-founder with an article, but not sure that would be DUE. Star Mississippi 00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Companies. Star Mississippi 00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. Although the article has independent references, it's a stub that reads like a promotional pamphlet, with minimal effort made to establish notability beyond one of its co-founders having a Wikipedia article of his own. CoolieCoolster (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
vote delete. feels like a company trying to promote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:45F0:31E0:A5BA:C143:EE9E:F7BA (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Avoids A7, but is a long way from N, and I do not see how it could possibly get there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airbiquity

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

All sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company,^[1]^[2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Teratix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
^ Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened all of the refs, they are routine press releases, 404, tangential and such. Nothing to establish notability. A 1997 startup that had 50-100 employess before being bought up recently and has now disappeared. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look for sources that weren't in the article? – Teratix ₵ 04:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 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!} 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep the page seems to be notable, and the routine coverage is not so bad, while better sources should be added by the locals or those who know the topic better. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, perhaps to connected car as an AtD. I did do a reasonable BEFORE, and I don't see anything outside of routine business news, including the sources presented in this process. I agree with the source analysis by Desertarun. I see nothing which directly details why this failed startup is remarkable inside of its field. The rest is just fundraising and rewritten press releases, including links provided in this process. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolux Laundry Systems

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

Article has absolutely no references to support it, has been tagged for many years to that effect, has not had anything substantial added to it for several years, and is not particularly informative. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 gnews hits one of which is primary. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophisticated Games

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small board game company. No refs, nothing i can find on google. Desertarun (talk) 08:42, 27 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG obviously. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.
  The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."
  The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."
2. Fensel, Dieter; Facca, Federico Michele; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.
  The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."
3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.
  The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."
4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.
  The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seekda to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:
1. Bin, Sen & Sun 2012's abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.
2. Fensel et al. 2011 has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.
It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 (talk · contribs), I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenish Pickle!: What do you think? BD2412 T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:
1. Simperl, Elena; Cuel, Roberta; Stein, Martin (2013). "Case Study: Building a Community of Practice Around Web Service Management and Annotation". Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-79441-4_4. ISBN 978-3-031-79440-7.
  The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin.
  "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.
  "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda."
2. Petrie, Charles (2009-11-06). "Practical Web Services". IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 13, no. 6. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.135.
  The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?"
Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria says:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material".

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: You said:

Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT

I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad choice of words on my part. I will admit that as it does not literally say that. I am going off what it says here "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)" - I take that (and it has been fairly consistent in NCORP AfD discussions) to mean the company must be the main topic.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But your own quotation specifies an exception if the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself – NCORP, far from requiring something must be "the main topic" of the article in question, explicitly notes the opposite: an article with a different main topic still demonstrates notability if it devotes "significant attention" to the topic under scrutiny. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography. The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems. This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is assuming the software is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's been more than adequately demonstrated by the sources. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus in sight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for the insightful analysis, Teratix (talk · contribs)! As you've suggested, I've modified the lead to focus on on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiolbassa Sausage

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

No evidence of notability. One source was added in response to my PROD, but both it's reliablilty and the independence of its content are dubious. Previously deleted and salted as Kiolbassa * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm landing on a weak Keep. I've added a bit, checked the refs, searched for more; there's a biz journals article that looks like it might be sigcov that I can't get to, added that into a Further reading section in case someone else can. It's got two instance of coverage by Forbes former staff, which is a bit hard to assess, and obviously it would be better if it were two different non-local sources. Lots of local coverage, and coverage in an industry mag. I guess what puts me kind of over the top toward keep is the fact it's been in business independently for 75 years, which for a food business of this type is practically a claim to notability all by itself. Valereee (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee the San Antonio Business Journal article is sub-titled "Kiolbassa CEO talks growth opportunities, company culture and legacy" and is largely what they say about themselves. S0091 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that subtitle, but headlines can be so misleading, thanks for clarifying. It's a cusp article, I'd say. 1949 and still a family business, and of this size...that's unusual. I dunno. I will, however, definitely be having my husband look for it next time he's at the grocery. :D Valereee (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to get this discussion that seems to have fallen off the radar entirely back on the radar.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pppery (alt) (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teleena MVNE

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

Spammy article on a company with no evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted as Teleena * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator stands correct. Since the current article is under the wrong title and Teleena is not mentioned at Tata Communications, into which it dissolved, DO NOT redirect. gidonb (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Creative

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

Only sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE press releases. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Tennessee. Kpg jhp jm 17:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a run of the mill company, i googled and checked news, can't see anythling that would make it noteworthy. 25 employees. Desertarun (talk) 16:25, 26 April 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 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. No substantive content. Puff piece from/on/by a WP:ROTM marketing agency 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:01, 28 April 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. Daniel (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agri-Fab

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

Nothing notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV Gavrover (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 19 April 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 23:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the article I expected more coverage to exist, but after checking news and books I'm Just Not Seeing It. Disappointing, as it is quite a well constructed article with nice prose and structure and pictures. BrigadierG (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find sigcov sufficient to meet WP:NCORP (and even reviews of its products are relatively thin -- though perhaps more likely in specialty publications). Could in theory be redirected to Sullivan,_Illinois#Economy to preserve cats, but it doesn't appear to be a significant enough company for that middle-ground to be needed. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG ,lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarius Musikindo

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

Nothing notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV. The author is blocked for evading the block Gavrover (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we can verify the article's claim that it is the second largest record label in Indonesia, it's definitely worthy of inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's definitely the second-biggest.[1][2][3][4] WC gudang inspirasi (talk) 04:09, 23 April 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) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source on one page of a book is the definition of failing WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Since someone did propose draftify as an option, I'll note I'm not at all opposed to the page being refunded to draft space for further work if requested. However, for the time being, the original author is inactive and no one has shown a particular interest in improving the article, so I'm going with delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LandFighter

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

Nearly unsourced advertisement of non-notable brand. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Europe, and Netherlands. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, Draftify.: The external links section only has a dead-link to the website of the brand. Article also only has 1 source at the time of me posting this. Shadow311 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brand folded without leaving an impression. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 24 April 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 06:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RooR

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

No in-depth coverage on the internet, nearly unsourced advertisement. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Germany. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A not-notable bong maker in Germany. The article was created 15 years ago, and only has four sentences. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MorphThing

AfDs for this article:

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

Advert of non-notable (only trivial coverage) website. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything beyond name checks. We can't have an article exclusively sourced to primary, first-party sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only primary, user-generated sources and trivial listings found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:53, 25 April 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. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castilho International Legal Corporation

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. No results from a WP:BEFORE search. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have already put the title into namespace, however the redirect was removed and recreated into mainspace. The draft is still there though. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the WP:SIRS test, so fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Also, it was created by a UPE. UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credibly (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

I guess this has been recreated—wasn't quite sure what had happened here initially, but as I was planning on commenting on the previous AFD I guess I may as well nom it. I couldn't find anything useful in my own search. Editing history of the creator also seems a bit odd but I'm not too familiar with that kind of thing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Michigan. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at the previous AFD. The only indepth sourcing is not from reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created the article as good faith. I believe the subject passes GNG on the basis of independent references. JSS24 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is irrelevant. To a first approximation all articles, no matter how lacking in notability they may be, are created in good faith. Athel cb (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not all articles, heh. It's possible the range p-block on the IP is just collateral though. I mean, I wouldn't bet money on it but it's possible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Evidences are available to prove subject's Notability Guidelines. And passes GNG. 2409:40D0:10CE:A5F:1C4F:A30E:B72D:E5DA (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This user is currently blocked." What more is there to say? Delete. Athel cb (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore references need to meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Nothing I can find meets the criteria, mostly just PR and company announcements and profiles, all generated either by the company or regurgitating company provided/generated information, nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage from reliable sources other than routine coverage. Air on White (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beatbox Kitchen

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

Fails WP:NCORP. See table below. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios	Lengthy discussion of Rashid before interview begins		coverage is of Rashid, not the restaurant	✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/beatbox-kitchen-opens-brunswick	? Unclear whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content	? Unclear		? Unknown
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/food-trucks-ready-to-burn-rubber-to-your-nearest-park-20200925-p55zcj.html			Bare mention of the restaurant, article is about COVID	✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/food-truck-fitzroy-beatbox-kitchen-opens-second-shop	? Unsure whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content	? Unclear		? Unknown
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/beatbox-kitchens-raph-rashid-makes-the-ultimate-aussie-burger/news-story/554135474e0b453ae601670b470d46c9	? Tabloid	~	Bare mention of the restaurant	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hey, GMH Melbourne, I'm not as familiar with AUS sources as you probably are, but to me those don't all look like simple straight interviews. Many sources will speak to a representative when covering any sort of business, and quoting those representatives doesn't turn a story into an interview. I feel like multiple of them are actually talking about the business in their own voices more than they're quoting the representatives. Can you elaborate on why you feel each of these doesn't represent independent coverage? Are these sources known for sponsored content?

For me the Vice piece probably fails to support notability of the restaurant more because its four long paragraphs before the interview portion are about the proprietor rather than about the restaurant. I would actually tend to accept that source as support for notability for the proprietor. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the table, the other sources are not just interviews, but also promo pieces or very promotional. A promo piece definitely would not count as a RS. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I understand what you mean. If we take what you have said into account, I'd say that The Age article could count towards GNG. Broadsheet is a food/travel magazine it would be hard to say whether or not they are totally independent of the subject. The Herald Sun article is a total promo piece with a burger created exclusively for heraldsun.com.au which leads me to doubt the independence of the broadsheet articles. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...I don't see promotionalism of the restaurant in that piece. That's more the herald promoting itself, which all newspapers do to some extent -- a story 'exclusive to the NYT' is not the NYT promoting the subject of their story but the NYT promoting themselves. So a burger created exclusively for the herald is really just the herald saying, "Aren't you glad you're reading the herald, because otherwise you wouldn't get this recipe!" But that said, again the piece is primarily about Rashid and Chang, not about Beatbox. So again I'd say not sigcov of this article subject.

The Broadsheet articles are about the restaurant. I generally like to see different sources, but these are at least written by different people at the Broadsheet. But that's still local coverage. The Age is probably not significant coverage, it's a bare mention of BeatBox in a story about food trucks during COVID. And the Vice is not about the restaurant.

I think on balance I'm landing on Delete. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While current sentiment is leaning towards delete, giving this another seven days to assess if further input continues to lean that way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this Vice article which is no doubt independent, sigcov, and has depth:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios

This coverage of it shutting down which nevertheless is a secondary source that provides critical commentary of its life:

https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/beatbox-kitchens-brunswick-burger-shop-is-closing-down-20210715-h1x5me.html

This, combined with the dubious but in my opinion passable Broadsheet coverage meets WP:THREE and WP:GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the vice article is total independent, the vast majority of it is an interview with the owner, and even then I would say that it is based more on the owner rather than Beatbox Kitchen itself. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Vice piece is already in the article, and as GMH says, it's not about the subject. It's about the owner. Valereee (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but consider a new BLP article on Raph Rashid, for which the Vice article would be one principle source (two more would be necessary). The Vice article is in the source assessment table, which makes the point that the article is about Rashid and not about Beatbox Kitchen. We don't seem to have a BLP article on Raph Rashid, but that might be what is notable, not the burger truck. The article on the closing down must be approached with more caution. It is a discursive primary source inasmuch as it is reporting the closure. Discursive because it provides some background. The background is relevant, the occasion for the source is not, being primary. See WP:SIRS. Nothing here meets WP:CORPDEPTH and this fails WP:NCORP, but again, we have one good source for a BLP. If the BLP existed, redirect would be reasonable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the chain fails sigcov but the owner could have an article on themselve. X (talk) 04:30, 28 April 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!} 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Song Haus Music

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

This article on a USA-based record label, created in 2010, is unreferenced. Per WP:Before no sigcov found including in searches in both the wikipedia library and standard search engine, except a passing mention in Billboard ([5]). Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As there aren't guidelines in place for record labels - I expect WP:NORG applies. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and United States of America. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company shares a warehouse with two other record labels: Metallic Blue Records and Rewind Records. [6] StonyBrook _babble 22:12, 17 April 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) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; borderline WP:SNOW. BD2412 T 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wegmans locations

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

Flatly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't see a standing precedence for such lists. There is no reason to believe this is a suitable merge candidate. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, Maryland, New York, and Virginia. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note WP:NOTPRICE is the specific portion of the policy that indicates lists like this should be avoided. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? delete per WP:NOTPRICE. Mangoe (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTPRICE. (Although not knowing where the nearest Burger Bar is poses serious concerns.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is outside our remit as a general knowledge encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While it appears the creator did a lot of work in creating this article, this is clearly a WP:NOTPRICE violation. Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studios Hergé

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

Appears to fail notability. While the namesake of the studios, Hergé, is undoubtedly notable, I don't see how these studios are. When I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, most of the sources were about Hergé and not the studios themselves, and/or do not have WP:SIGCOV of the studios. The article has been tagged as requiring additional sources since 2014, and most of the sourcing is unverifiable (the two book citations do not have a page number, or ISBN, making the claim violate WP:PAGENUM, and the other is an interview with a link to an insecure website). As an WP:ATD, I'd be fine with a redirect to the Hergé Foundation, which appears to be notable, since the Foundation is the successor to the studios. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Organizations, and Belgium. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources giving attention to the studios, their role in the creation of the later Tintin stories, the many famous artists who worked here (most famously Bob de Moor, Jacques Martin and Roger Leloup probably, what happened to it after Hergés death, ... Plenty of reliable and indepth information from even English-language sources like this book (note, one or two of the pages listed are about the older advertising Studio Hergé had on the thirties, not the actual Studios Hergé, but most are about this one), this book, this one, ... And plenty more in French language books like this one discussing the Studios at length. Fram (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I would object to a redirection, because while technically the Foundation is the successor, their role was completely different: the Studios were a creative groupn making new comics and new drawings (for ads and so on), while the Foundation was an exploitative group, reusing existing images for new uses (e.g. clothing) but not creating things. Fram (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated now. The French article also has some additional sources. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both Hergé, Son of Tintin and The Real Hergé: The Inspiration Behind Tintin (linked by Fram above) offer significant coverage that demonstrates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No notability problem whatsoever. Also the length of the article is sufficient. The article does need more inline references, already covered by a warning. Nomination is a clear NEXIST failure. AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SNOW apply. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The studios have received sufficient sig coverage throughout their run. X (talk) 09:21, 23 April 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Credit Union

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Sources are just a couple routine local notices plus coverage on a couple criminal charges against associated individuals North8000 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, North8000. I think the Christian Credit Union in Edmonton probably meets notability; however this is not well demonstrated in the current stub. I think the bank will meet notability because of its strong cultural connection to Edmonton's Dutch community. It is where the vast majority of Edmonton's Dutch community has banked for almost 75 years and the bank has hosted and sponsored a range of cultural events in the city. I am happy to continue working on it in Mainspace, or someone can move it back to draftspace where I will attempt to demonstrate this. Tracklan2 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tracklan2: Cool. From a Wikip[edia standpoint that requires finding and including an independent (of the credit union) source or 2 that covers them in depth. For example, a Dutch community source that does that. If you could do that in 1-2 weeks we could settle this right here as a "keep". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just expanded the article a bit and added a handful of citations Tracklan2 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that's a lot of references over decades - including National - here's a better link for the National Post article, for Wikipedia editors. Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Am I allowed to vote keep even though I'm the one who wrote it? The Christian Courier articles from 2002 are independent of the bank and discuss its history and mission/vision in depth. I agree with Nfitz that the national coverage and ongoing coverage across decades and publications is significant. Tracklan2 (talk) 4:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed. (although we don't call it a vote :-) ) North8000 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of the nominator on whether recent additions assuage their concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/withdraw Creator has made many source additions including a rock-solid-GNG source (which looks like it was hard to find). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenma Films International

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The source cited as being the source for the entire text portion of the article is an obituary which makes only a brief mention of the company. And so the text of the article is about the person who died, not the company. The other refs are about films, not the company. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP: No significant coverage about the company. Sources are mostly about the films they have produced which fall under routine coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccuSystems

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

The article doesn't show any reason for notability and reads as an advertisement. Nigel757 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline A7, does not really make any recognisable CCS. Also WP:BROCHURE as of current version, but the pre-UPE edited versions available in the article history are better in that regard. I cannot find anything beyond name checks, not even passing mentions really. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once I removed the spammy promo links, the article was even shorter. Nothing to suggest this company met GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROS (company)

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

Sources are largely routine transactional coverage, not in-depth and independent. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted at PROS * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's odd. I would normally expect a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange to have lots of coverage. Perhaps the problem is that hits are being masked by other uses of the word Pros. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~, just barely~~ This company may have the worst search-optimized name of all time, complicating any BEFORE search, but I am having a hard time finding independent, secondary, reliable sources providing significant coverage to meet WP:NORG. Examples: Reuters (already cited in article; trivial coverage); the three Houston Business Journal pieces already cited (trivial coverage); and an additional Reuters story (trivial coverage). However, I can identify an additional Houston Business Journal story and two scholarly book mentions (here, here). I think it just scrapes under the line, but it's close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Updating my view to "keep" based on the analyst reports identified by Cunard below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

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.

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/PRO/price-target/^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Analyst Name	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
3/4/2024	Needham & Company LLC		Reiterated Rating	Buy ➝ Buy	$40.00	+11.23%	View Report Details
1/12/2024	KeyCorp		Upgrade	Sector Weight ➝ Overweight	$43.00	+24.46%	View Report Details
12/4/2023	Robert W. Baird		Boost Target	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$40.00 ➝ $47.00	+20.20%	View Report Details
5/24/2023	Craig Hallum		Boost Target		$32.00 ➝ $37.00	+32.47%	View Report Details
5/3/2023	Stifel Nicolaus		Lower Target		$36.00 ➝ $34.00	+28.54%	View Report Details
4/19/2023	Oppenheimer		Initiated Coverage	Outperform	$37.00	+36.94%	View Report Details
3/4/2022	Morgan Stanley		Lower Target	Equal Weight	$35.00 ➝ $33.00	+5.74%	View Report Details
12/14/2021	JPMorgan Chase & Co.		Upgrade	Underweight ➝ Neutral	$37.00	+10.02%	View Report Details
12/17/2020	Northland Securities		Boost Target	Outperform	$56.00 ➝ $61.00	+25.49%	View Report Details
10/30/2020	Royal Bank of Canada		Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Sector Perform	$33.00	+5.06%	View Report Details
2/12/2020	Bank of America	John King	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$80.00	+53.73%	View Report Details
7/26/2019	Nomura Securities		Boost Target	Buy	$77.00 ➝ $79.00	+7.98%	View Report Details
5/23/2019	DA Davidson		Boost Target	Neutral	$50.00	-6.94%	View Report Details
5/10/2019	JMP Securities		Reiterated Rating	Mkt Perform ➝ Market Perform			View Report Details
6/29/2017	Pacific Crest		Boost Target	Overweight	$30.00 ➝ $35.00	+29.06%	View Report Details
5/3/2017	Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft		Boost Target	Buy	$35.00	+37.42%	View Report Details
2/13/2017	William Blair		Reiterated Rating	Outperform			View Report Details
8/25/2015	TD Securities		Lower Target	Speculative Buy	C$0.35 ➝ C$0.30		View Report Details
4/8/2015	Dundee Securities		Initiated Coverage	Buy			View Report Details
2/28/2014	Jefferies Financial Group		Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold	$47.00 ➝ $37.00	-9.89%	View Report Details

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PROS 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) 10:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Cunard. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources by Cunard. They prove GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall

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

This topic does not comply with the Wikipedia's general notability guideline and there is no reliable source to prove popularity. TMXX0818 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few sources in Chinese, Bailian seems to be a major company operating many malls, department store chains and other retail chains, probably worth an article. I am always so reluctant to see lack of coverage in English Wikipedia because it's not covered in English, it's important to be inclusive where possible as English doesn't just belong to the US, UK, India etc but to the world as the world's unifying language of communication. Keizers (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change this to an article about the company. Definitely notable with sources. Keizers (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Entertainment, and China. TMXX0818 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tang, Xiaoli 唐小丽; Xuan, Zhaoqiang 轩召强 (2023-10-30). ""百联西郊"今起试营业！好吃好玩的超多，优惠力度大" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall starts its trial operation today! There are so many delicious and fun things to eat and great discounts]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "10月27日，百联西郊购物中心启动试营业，友宠、优雅、饕餮、欢聚、品质、健康6大生活方式板块，为市民带来全新的多维生活体验。现场人气十足，跟随“宁宁”镜头去打卡吧。 ... 百联西郊购物中心，于2004年开业，是国内首家开放式建筑风格的购物中心，也是上海首个拥有露天广场的社区购物中心。"
  From Google Translate: "On 27 October, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center launched its trial operation, with six major lifestyle sections: pet-friendly, elegant, gourmet, gathering, quality, and healthy, bringing a new multi-dimensional life experience to citizens. The scene is very popular, follow the "Ning Ning" lens to check in. ... Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center opened in 2004 and is the first open mall in China. It is a shopping mall with a traditional architectural style and is also the first community shopping mall with an open-air plaza in Shanghai."
2. Cheng, Qi 程琦 (2023-10-28). "经过一年多闭店调整，百联西郊焕新回归：引入友宠等多元场景，重塑商业空间" [After more than a year of store closures and adjustments, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall returns with a new look: introducing diverse scenarios such as friendly pets and reshaping the commercial space]. Eastday [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "经过一年闭店调整的百联西郊购物中心于本周正式开启试营业。温暖柔和的秋日阳光透过新开辟的悦活东庭与悦尚西庭的巨幅采光天窗，在下沉式郊点广场相汇绽放，东里西巷人头攒动，共同见证百联西郊在花样年华焕新再出发。"
  From Google Translate: "Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center officially opened for trial operation this week. The warm and soft autumn sunshine shines through the huge skylights of the newly opened Yuehuo East Courtyard and Yueshang West Courtyard, and blooms in the sunken suburb square. The east and west lanes are crowded with people, witnessing the prosperity of Bailian West Suburb in the Mood for Love. Start fresh and start again."
3. "百联西郊购物中心暂停营业，进行为期一年的闭店改造" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center is temporarily closed for one-year renovation]. People's Daily (in Chinese). 2022-06-16. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "百联西郊购物中心是国内首家开放式建筑风格的购物中心是上海首个拥有露天广场的社区购物中心扎根上海西部18年它见证着城市商业发展也承载着长宁几代人 ... 在18年的经营过程中，百联西郊购物中心每年都会对品牌和业态进行局部调整。但随着消费快速升级，消费者越来越注重消费体验以及购物中心的可玩性，局部改造已不能满足品牌迭代更新需求，动线不合理及硬件老化也限制了中心发展，因此最终采用闭店形式进行改造。"
  From Google Translate: "It is the first shopping mall with open architectural style in China. It is the first community shopping mall with an open-air plaza in Shanghai. Rooted in western Shanghai for 18 years It witnesses the commercial development of the city It also carries generations of Changning people ... During its 18 years of operation, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center has made partial adjustments to its brand and business formats every year. However, with the rapid upgrading of consumption, consumers pay more and more attention to the consumption experience and the playability of shopping malls. Local renovations can no longer meet the needs of brand iteration and update. Unreasonable movement lines and aging hardware also limit the development of the center. Therefore, closed centers were finally adopted. The store format is renovated."
4. Xu, Jinghui 徐晶卉 (2022-09-13). "破题核心区存量更新，百联西郊迎来一年改造期，焕变"超级社区能量场"" [The inventory of the core area of PoTian is updated, and the western suburbs of Bailian usher in a one-year transformation period to transform into a "super community energy field"]. Wenhui Bao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "位于区域核心位置上的百联西郊购物中心，需要全新的价值发现和形态重构，来提升其在西郊、古北、大虹桥三大商圈交汇跃升中的竞争优势；给这个类似纽约“上西区”的辐射域，和其中的居民，带来更新鲜的多元生活方式提案。7月起，百联西郊迎来为期一年的闭店改造。"
  From Google Translate: "Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center, located at the core of the region, needs new value discovery and form reconstruction to enhance its competitive advantage in the intersection of the three major business districts of Xijiao, Gubei and Greater Hongqiao; to give this "New York-like" The radiation area of "Upper West Side" and its residents bring fresher and diverse lifestyle proposals. Starting from July, Bailian Xijiao will undergo a one-year store closure and renovation."
5. "百联西郊购物中心即将焕新启幕，"超级社区"构筑高能级业态生活能量场" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center is about to be renovated and opened, and the "super community" will build a high-energy business life energy field]. Forbes China (in Chinese). 2022-09-01. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "2004年，作为国内第一家北美风格开放式花园购物中心，百联西郊在十八载的岁月中，不断攒拾着区域发展的“西郊记忆”，成为全国购物中心的典范。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2004, as the country's first North American-style open garden shopping mall, Bailian West Suburbs has continued to accumulate the "Western Suburbs Memory" of regional development over the past 18 years, becoming a model for shopping malls nationwide."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall (simplified Chinese: 百联西郊购物中心; traditional Chinese: 百聯西郊購物中心) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: page has been moved to Bailian Group • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some opinions on these newly found sources. Also, please do not move an article being discussed at an AFD to a different page title. It really confuses XFDCloser which we use to relist and close discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources found by Cunard. WP:SPLIT the irrelevant section on the Bailian Group to its own page as this article should only be about the shopping mall. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 21:55, 20 April 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, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd

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

fails WNCORP , no sufficient reliable sources, nor general notability BoraVoro (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am ready to update the article based on your suggestions. Please let me know what changes are required on the page Akhare 2024 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added some more citations to the page Akhare 2024 (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WNCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently updated the article with citations, is it ok to close this discussion and remove the notice from the article? Akhare 2024 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more sources were added but none of them are sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. I can't find any independent sources that provide in-depth coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:07, 29 April 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throne (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, appears not notable BoraVoro (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yet to match the social media networking site’s guidelines. For now its DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarshalDhotre06 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 22 April 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) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

del - nothing but adverts. - Altenmann >talk 03:36, 30 April 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!} 06:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Trade Exchange

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

Article was created evading a salting. No real evidence of notability - none of the sources provide in-depth, independent coverage * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP/WP:SIRS. On WP:LIBRARY all available sources are press releases, like those already representing most of the sources in the article. Jfire (talk) 21:04, 21 April 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. There is no deletion rationale provided here in the nomination statement but opinion is unanimous that this article should be deleted so that is the outcome of this two week discussion period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erento

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

Someone previously attempted Wikipedia:PROD, but I thought we should do AFD instead User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sawerchessread, that someone was me, and you could have told me. I don't know why we are here, and you didn't give a deletion rationale. You also didn't give any actual reason for removing the PROD--this is just an extra layer of work. Delete: not a notable outfit. Likely COI/UPE creation with promotional contributions. In the past it's had some sourcing, but if you look carefully those are really press releases in things that aren't independent publications. My PROD rationale said "Pretty obvious COI creation. Lack of secondary sources, no credible claims of notability, really just product placement", and I stand by that. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
apologies. did not know the protocol. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think it can meet current standards wrt. NCORP. Other issues mentioned by Drmies are also persuasive. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Desertarun (talk) 18:00, 27 April 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. Star Mississippi 14:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoomCase

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

Overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance: the article makes a pretty good case for the article to be treated as a flash-in-the-pan media sensation, rather than of encyclopedic notability. Sadads (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi Sadads,

I think it is a big stretch to say BoomCase was just a flash-in-the-pan media sensation. Lets start with some of the bigger things.

As the article states BoomCase has been featured in at least 3 published Books. The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan".

Secondly, I would argue It has even transcended into popular culture by being featured in a globally broadcasted main event WWE wrestling match - Brock Lesnar BoomBox by BoomCase | The BoomCase© , being used in commercials - BoomCase in H&R Block Commercial | The BoomCase© , in a popular Bollywood movie, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-in-bollywood-film/ , featured on the Ukraine's #1 travel show in 2015 , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-featured-on-ukraines-1-travel-show/, and being used for art work on beer cans - https://theboomcase.com/melvin-beer-x-boomcase/ , among many other things. (Blog | The BoomCase©)

There are a lot of things one could include just by looking at their Blog (Blog | The BoomCase©) or press page (https://theboomcase.com/press/) that would counter the flash in the pan idea.

Finally, the BoomCase is still an operating company 14+ years later. Usually, one hit wonders peak and then disappear. Seeing that BoomCase is still around being featured in press, tv and used for architectural projects in multiple countries with their new speaker wall product I can't agree with the labeling of "flash-in-the-pan media sensation". MistaKoko (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out MistaKoko's editing since September 2019 has been virtually exclusively geared towards getting this company's article into mainspace – they almost certainly have a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I appreciate your thorough perspective Sadads, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of BoomCase as an "overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance." On the contrary, BoomCase has demonstrated enduring significance and cultural impact in the realm of portable audio technology whether you are familiar with them or not.

Firstly, BoomCase's longevity speaks volumes about its relevance and staying power. Since its inception in 2009, the company has continued to thrive and evolve, expanding its reach and influence both domestically and internationally. This sustained presence contradicts the notion of being a mere "flash-in-the-pan" phenomenon.

Furthermore, BoomCase's contributions extend beyond mere media sensation. The company has been involved in numerous art installations and collaborations, showcasing its innovative approach to design and technology. Its products have been sought after by a diverse clientele, including celebrities and influencers, further underscoring its cultural significance and relevance.

Additionally, BoomCase's impact on popular culture cannot be overlooked. From its presence in mainstream media to its integration into various events and settings, BoomCase has become synonymous with style, innovation, and quality in the portable audio market.

In light of these considerations, I believe that BoomCase warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. I personally hate that a company can exist for this long and have physical impact on communities and still have to fight for a basic Wiki page like they don't exist, they do exist and have accomplished more than most companies. They deserve a page. Mrironmonkey (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLMs to write your comments is highly disrespectful to other editors. I trust this !vote will be given zero weight. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLM's is going to be inevitable when you suffer from dyslexia, how does Wikipedia plan on functioning in the singularity next year or the next decade if you can't communicate clearly? I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not. It's like being mad I used spellcheck. Address the points I made in the original post, and not something irrelevant to the argument.

I stand by my original point that if you lived in Northern/Southern California and you are in this space you have heard of Boomcase, and they deserve to be recognized in some capacity. Mrironmonkey (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not Cut it with this patronising, condescending attitude, you don't have a clue what I think about AI beyond my specific view that it's incredibly rude to generate arguments with the click of a button and expect real humans to invest their own time in debunking them, especially when said arguments have nothing to do with how we actually determine whether an article is warranted. – Teratix ₵ 11:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name-checks some impressive-sounding sources, but they either only discuss the company in passing or seem to be advertorials rather than genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Mrironmonkey is a WP:SPA who has made no other editor to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true at all - please actually look at the sources and read them. Not reading the sources is highly disrespectful to the editors and I trust this vote will be given very little weight. -

Sources discussing the company in more than passing plus interviews -

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

https://web.archive.org/web/20141224233949/http://blog.urbanoutfitters.com/blog/uo_studio_visits_boomcase

Yes some are short but wired or the NYTimes are not running an ad for BoomCase nor are any of the blogs or websites sourced -

Custom Boomboxes Fashioned from Vintage Suitcases | WIRED

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/garden/audio-equipment-shopping-with-jonah-takagi.html

Plus the books -

BoomCaseBookMadetoLast-2.jpg (1600×2314) (wp.com) - https://books.google.com/books?id=NNyjAQAACAAJ

https://library.tcdc.or.th/record/view/b00032508#:~:text=Technology%20%26%20Entertainment-,Boom%20Case,-Argus%20C3

https://i0.wp.com/theboomcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/retrodesignBookBoomCaseBraunBoomBox.jpg MistaKoko (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the sources. You hardly expected me to write up individual refutations of 32 individual sources, did you? Instead I summarised their nature.

Look, I'll level with you. Pick the three best sources you've got and I'll write out individual evaluations of them. – Teratix ₵ 08:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete References seems to particularly promotional, many offering product for sale failing WP:SIRS and breaking the Terms of use, or a passing mentions of type that fail WP:CORPDEPTH or the type of PR that are paid placements by the company that fail WP:ORGIND. Either way, the whole thing is a crock and straight up advert that should be G11'd from the get go. It currently fails WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that top of that it was declined multiples times from AFC, before being accepted by a editor who is now checkuser blocked. The whole thing is absolute crock. scope_creep^Talk 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not even reading the sources. How are these passing mentions? What proof do you have that the sources are PR? You cant just make claims when you have no idea what would have caused certain websites to write about a product. Just because a product received significant coverage doesn't make it paid. BoomCase is very small company of 5 or less people that started out by going viral I doubt they had money try to pay all these newspapers, books, and blogs to cover them. Come on now.

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

MistaKoko (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. scope_creep^Talk 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page:

CNET: A 400-word article is certainly significant coverage. My concern is it is not independent coverage. The author opens by noting I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs – i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph: Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it. This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
The second source is hosted by HuffPost, but scrolling to the bottom reveals it was written for AOL Small Business, which appears to be a form of trade publication focused on entrepreneurs. We have a presumption against using trade publications as evidence for notability. It also has a similar problem to the CNET source where much of its content appears to depend on information from Odbert himself.
California Home Design again has similar problems to CNET where virtually all the content is either Odbert's own quotes or information provided by Odbert, and ends by calling for readers to Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
GQ is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.
MELO is again mostly interview content providing no independent analysis beyond Odbert's responses. The little original writing is highly promotional, saying the Odbert brothers are changing the speaker game for good and call each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for taking the time to look closer at some of the sources. While I understand what you are saying, the thing is most articles like this are going to be very similar to this no matter what. Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. You would be hard pressed to find a review or write up on a product that does not include its price. I understand if these articles were about a large speaker company such as JBL or Pioneer and then trying to say these are all paid PR or non independent but being that BoomCase is a very small company its highly doubtful they had anything to do with the articles. It seems to me the viral nature of their story/product helped them receive so much press. There are so many things I Wish to cite from their press page but they are unfortunately from magazines that are not available online. (Press | The BoomCase©)

Also this has now become an argument started by Sadads about a "flash in the pan" sensation to an argument about references. I believe I should have the opportunity to find and improve the sources instead of a complete deletion. I think have shown it is not a flash in the pan by my first reply to Sadads.

There are still the three published books cited that I would like to use to write a better article. But im still not sure how to do this since I cant find the txt online other than a few images from BoomCases press page, but even then its not the full txt.

This is from above but just to show again the books - The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan". -

I have asked for help with this but have not gotten any unfortunately. I will keep trying.

Thanks again. MistaKoko (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For (hopefully) more input on the sourcing, which is being strongly questioned as to its contribution to our SIGCOV requirements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. I'm not saying the articles aren't independent because they link to where to buy a BoomCase or list its price. I'm saying they aren't independent because they contain virtually no information or analysis that isn't either (a) directly attributable to Odbert (b) obviously dependent on a narrative provided by Odbert or (c) obvious sales copy. See WP:ORGIND for more about what "independent source" means in the context of companies.

As for the books: Art Without Waste just has pictures of two BoomCases with no information beyond bare captions; Retro and Vintage Design manages a bare six sentences; Made to Last... OK, that one might actually qualify as a decent source. But we need multiple independent sources to meet our notability guidelines. I'll grant you've got one. – Teratix ₵ 07:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking through it more - However I think its hard to say all the references are obvious sales copy or dependent on Odbert. I doubt all them contacted BoomCase to write up their articles and again if you are writting about a product there is usually some sort of pitch about buying it or not. Also, Art without waste is 4 images not 2. Retro and Vintage design - It seems that if a large publisher includes you in a book with a two page feature of product that its a bit notable. I have also seen online there is more written about BoomCase in other parts of the Book but its on Instagram and I know that is consider a good place to source...

You also mentioned the Cnet article could be a source...

but You say -... This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs. The author IS giving their independent analysis by saying the price sounds reasonable for a made in America audio design. Thats their opinion and analysis. Do you think BoomCase told them to say this or something?

I also translated another article - Clublife Magazine 1.2013 by Clipboard Media - Issuu - 200+ words and seems independent. MistaKoko (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Tera's analysis of the sources, fails WP:NCORP. While secondary coverage of the company in generally reliable sources certainly exists, most of it isn't independent or significant enough. Mooonswimmer 14:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fair comment and "weak delete" and not a mean attack like the first two commentors did initially. This doesn't even include all they wrote on my talk page or the conflict of interest noticeboard... I appreciate it.

I translated this https://issuu.com/clipboardpublishing/docs/clublife_magazine_1_2013/14 but its probably too late now. Hopefully I can keep working on this page somehow and try again later. MistaKoko (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After considering all the arguments and analysis above and the history of this article on Wiki, it does not pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Connect

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

Deprod by @MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 20 April 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) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Easily passes GNG. DCsansei (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DCsansei, both for GNG and NCORP, trivial coverage (e.g. WP:ORGTRIV) are not counted towards meeting the requirements? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:24, 2 May 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) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem to be in-depth and independent, just interviews and press releases. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the financial figures are from press releases, all other citations are from independent media outlets. Bridges&Horizons (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kennedys Law. Daniel (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Juest wanted to note, I'm alright with redirect, though I'm not so sure the other company is notable either. Don't really think there's anything to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:02, 27 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kennedys Law: Trivia PR coverage doesn't meet WP:NCORP, appropriate to merge to parent company even though sources in Kennedys Law aren't really independent Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article there are many articles about it being purchased by Kennedys and its cases prior to the purchase [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Also covered in multiple legal books including the European Legal 500 until its merger and Chambers UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfloving (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kennedys Law, also agree, don't think the sourcing for the redirect target meets NCORP either but that isn't the topic at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loudsauce

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

A defunct platform/company of strictly ephemeral interest. Source 4 on the page is a blog post and source 5 is a medium post, so those are WP:SPS. The other 3 are just announcements. Just two paragraphs on FastCompany.com, Metropolis is not independent, there is a single one sentence passing mention in Courier international. So no sources meet WP:SIRS and additional searches do not find any WP:CORPDEPTH sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Companies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it being deleted. Nowa (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Business Insider is a usable source not currently in the article, although it does heavily rely on the founders. There are also a few sources discussing specific Loudsauce campaigns: a Greek campaign covered in the The Telegraph and NYT, a failed Romney campaign in Politico, a domestic-violence campaign in ABC13 (but consider WP:AUD), and Occupy in The Atlantic, Der Spiegel and HuffPost. Gets a general mention in this Atlantic interview. Crain's Detroit Business has some reasonable coverage but might not meet WP:AUD. Still lean delete – I don't see any slam-dunk sources that convincingly pass NCORP, just a pattern of promising coverage – but I wouldn't lose sleep if this was kept. Comparison of crowdfunding services could be a viable merge target but would require some work, see the talk page. – Teratix ₵ 13:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) (amended 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Upon reflection I am moving to outright delete. There is not enough independent coverage of Loudsauce itself, as opposed to specific campaigns using Loudsauce, to justify an article. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per HighKing and Teratix. Sources exist, yes, but they do not specifically center around loudspace but other stuff that features loudspace. passing mentions do not warrant notability. X (talk) 19:35, 23 April 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 JSDelivr. ✗plicit 13:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BootstrapCDN

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

Non-notable content delivery network. All references in article are primary sources published by the company and I couldn't find any sources to satisfy WP:GNG elsewhere. Might be worth a brief mention at Jsdelivr at the very most. ~Liance^talk 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Internet. ~Liance^talk 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge with Jsdelivr, as that appears to be more notable and is now BootstrapCDN's successor, per the article. However, Jsdeliver's article is mostly covered by primary sources and a Google search mostly brings primary sources and trivial mentions, so its notability might be uncertain as well. Xeroctic (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think you meant to suggest JSDelivr as a Redirect target as the page you refer to is, itself, a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jsdelivr - It's definitely not a keep. Per nom., no secondary sources. My hesitation was whether it should be delete or redirect. The problem with redirect, as per Xeroctic, is that the redirect target may itself not be notable. However, on balance that ATD is okay. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. ✗plicit 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Islands

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

Previously deleted and salted as Secure Islands Technologies, this version was originally created by the same spammer. It cites better-looking sources and is written in a less promotional tone, but the sources all seem to rely on information provided by the company and fail WP:ORGIND * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. Consider protection to prevent redirect hijacking. – Teratix ₵ 15:30, 14 April 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) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft seems like the best option as per WP:ATD, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 12:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optoma Corporation

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

Sources are largely thinly-disguised press releases with no real evidence of notability per WP:NORG. Previously deleted and salted as Optoma * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Taiwan, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after rewrite Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 04:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Huang, Hanhua 黃漢華 (2011-05-30). "奧圖碼 8年攻下世界8％" [Optoma conquered 8% of the world in 8 years]. Global Views Monthly [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Optoma is a company established in 2002 by Zhongqiang Optoelectronics, which is engaged in projector OEM. Among Japanese brands, which account for almost 90% of the global projector market, they have captured 8% of the world's market share in the past eight years, second only to the century-old Japanese brand EPSON. This Taiwanese projector brand that did not exist eight years ago is already the second largest in the world."
2. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-01-13). "奧圖碼高階投影機競豔" [Optoma high-end projectors compete]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B4.
  The article notes: "中光電（5371）旗下奧圖碼以「Optoma」自有品牌在CES推出高階投影機，今年以自牌投影機在全球銷售量可達60萬台，坐穩全球第四大、美國市場第二大，將以720p與1080p普及、高階機種來打開全球市場。"
  From Google Translate: "Optoma, a subsidiary of China Optoelectronics (5371), launched high-end projectors at CES under its own brand "Optoma". This year, global sales of its own-brand projectors reached 600,000 units, ranking fourth in the world and second in the U.S. market. It will compete in the global market with popular and high-end models of 720p and 1080p."
3. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-10-16). "奧圖碼搶攻DLP投影機市場" [Optoma seizes DLP projector market]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C7.
  The article notes: "全球最大DLP投影機品牌的奧圖碼科技（3565），與德儀（TI）挺進中小企業DLP投影機市場，昨（15）日發表五款普及型至高階的商用機種，擴大在台灣商用市場占有率至20%以上；奧圖碼（Optoma）自有品牌的DLP投影機市占今年蟬聯全球及台灣第一，"
  From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology (3565), the world's largest DLP projector brand, and TI have entered the DLP projector market for small and medium-sized enterprises. Yesterday (15th), they released five popular to high-end commercial models, expanding their commercial use in Taiwan The market share has reached more than 20%; Optoma's own-brand DLP projector has ranked first in the world and in Taiwan this year."
4. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-07-12). "登錄興櫃首日漲86% 奧圖碼品牌投影機坐穩全球二哥" [Login to open counter. Rose 86% on the first day. Optoma projector brand firmly occupies the second position in the world]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C3.
  The article notes: "全球第二大投影機品牌的奧圖碼科技（3565）昨（11）日首日登錄興櫃的均價以98.16元收盤，開出好彩頭。今年奧圖碼以「Optoma」自有品牌目標在全球市場賣出50萬台，坐穩全球第二大，在DLP投影機的機種則位居全球第一；其母公司中光電（5371）則是全球DLP投影機最大的OEM╱ODM代工廠，今年出貨量將成長逾二成、達80萬台新高。"
  From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology (3565), the world's second largest projector brand, closed at an average price of 98.16 yuan on its first day of trading yesterday (11th), a good start. This year, Optoma aims to sell 500,000 units of its own brand "Optoma" in the global market, ranking second in the world. It ranks first in the world in DLP projector models; its parent company China Optoelectronics (5371) It is the largest OEM/ODM factory of DLP projectors in the world, and its shipments this year will increase by more than 20%, reaching a new high of 800,000 units."
5. Luo, Xiuwen 羅秀文 (2007-07-11). "奧圖碼風光上興櫃" [Optoma Scenery and cabinet]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 19.
  The article notes: "奧圖碼科技實收資本額6.09億元，董事長為李有田，主要產品為投影機及影像處理器。主要法人大股東為中強光電，持股比率52.74%。 ... 奧圖碼去年投影機出貨量為35萬2166台，較前年的逾17萬台成長102.4%。"
  From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology has a paid-in capital of 609 million yuan. Its chairman is Li Youtian. Its main products are projectors and image processors. The main legal person shareholder is Zhongqiang Optoelectronics, with a shareholding ratio of 52.74%. ... Optoma's projector shipments last year were 352,166 units, an increase of 102.4% from more than 170,000 units the previous year."
6. Xiao, Junhui 蕭君暉 (2015-09-03). "投影機Q2出貨奧圖碼第四名" [Projector shipments in Q2, Optoma ranks fourth]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C4.
  The article notes: "IDC昨（2）日公布第2季台灣前五大投影機廠商出貨量排名，依序為愛普生、NEC、佳世達（2352）旗下明基、中光電旗下奧圖碼，以及台達電旗下的麗訊。"
  From Google Translate: "IDC announced yesterday (2) the ranking of the top five projector manufacturers in Taiwan in terms of shipments in the second quarter. In order, they are Epson, NEC, BenQ of Qisda (2352), Optoma of China Optoelectronics, and Delta Electronics."
7. Qi, Anguo 祁安國 (2005-09-03). "變身大廚跆拳道高手大力士…… Optoma郭特利百變總經理" [Transform into a chef, a Taekwondo master, a strongman... Optoma's Guo Teli, ever-changing general manager]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. A10.
  The article notes: "Optoma這個品牌是3C業界的「菜鳥」，由原來叫志紅科技，郭特利接掌後改中文為「奧圖碼」，不到兩年成為國內投影機第一品牌，讓投影機大廠Epson、BenQ也不得不視為「可敬的對手」。"
  From Google Translate: "The Optoma brand is a "rookie" in the 3C industry. It was originally called Zhihong Technology. After Guo Teli took over, the Chinese name was changed to "Optoma". In less than two years, it became the number one projector brand in the country, leaving major projector manufacturers behind. Epson and BenQ have to be regarded as "respectable opponents"."
8. PCMag reviews:
  1. Stone, M. David (2024-02-07). "Optoma UHZ35ST Review: A projector for your home and beyond". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No built-in streaming apps or bundled dongle. Shows frequent rainbow artifacts. Image quality for HDR isn't as good as for SDR. Pricey for what it delivers."
  2. Stone, M. David (2022-08-22). "Optoma UHD55 Review: All colors and no lag make a brilliant 4K projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one of the two HDMI ports offers the short input lag. Limited number of streaming apps"
  3. Stone, M. David (2021-12-08). "Optoma CinemaX P2 Review: More hits than misses on this 4K ultra-short-throw projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Integrated streaming is better ignored in favor of an HDMI dongle (which demands a second remote). Only two of three HDMI ports support 4K with HDR. More prone to rainbow artifacts than most UST DLP projectors."
  4. Stone, M. David (2020-11-06). "Optoma GT1080HDR Review: Space-strapped? This short-throw projector pushes a bright, colorful image". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No support for HLG, the emerging HDR standard for broadcast TV. Remote often jumps two menu spots with one button-press. No carry case."
  5. Stone, M. David (2021-07-08). "Optoma UHD35 Review: Flexible and relatively inexpensive 4K". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level is too high on default settings. Default settings leave some colors a little too dark or unsaturated. Optical zoom is only 1.1x."
  6. Stone, M. David (2020-09-29). "Optoma HD39HDR Review: An ambient-light ace". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "With default settings, some hues are noticeably off for both SDR and HDR content. High brightness works well in ambient light, but means disappointing blacks and three-dimensionality in dark rooms."
  7. Stone, M. David (2021-02-02). "Optoma HD28HDR Review: A bright projector for movie night on the couch". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level not ideal for dark rooms. Dark scenes look better in 1080p SDR than downgraded 4K HDR."
  8. Stone, M. David (2021-02-17). "Optoma HD146X Review: A capable projector for cinephiles on a budget". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one HDMI port; USB port is only for power out. Onboard audio is poor. Lacks image shift for setup."
  9. Stone, M. David (2022-08-22). "Optoma UHD55 Review: All colors and no lag make a brilliant 4K projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one of the two HDMI ports offers the short input lag. Limited number of streaming apps"
  10. Stone, M. David (2015-11-17). "Optoma HD28DSE Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts in video testing."
  11. Stone, M. David (2015-11-18). "Optoma EH320USTi Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Poor instructions. Interactive feature is more difficult to set up than with competing projectors."
  12. Stone, M. David (2014-11-10). "Optoma HD141X Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Serious image quality problems with some source material at the brightest setting. Shows rainbow artifacts."
  13. Stone, M. David (2014-01-21). "Optoma GT760 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Native resolution is lower than today's latest gaming systems offer."
  14. Stone, M. David (2015-03-30). "Optoma HD161X Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black-and-white film clips. Long lag time."
  15. Hoffman, Tony (2013-09-12). "Optoma ZW212ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Rainbow effect in video. Relatively weak audio."
  16. Stone, M. David (2014-11-17). "Optoma HD26 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, particularly in black-and-white film clips. Has additional image-quality issues in its brightest predefined mode."
  17. Stone, M. David (2013-11-21). "Optoma X401 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Obvious rainbow artifacts in video make it suitable for short video clips only."
  18. Stone, M. David (2013-11-22). "Optoma W401 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Obvious rainbow artifacts in video make it suitable for short video clips only."
  19. Hoffman, Tony (2012-03-30). "Optoma Pico PK120 Pocket Projector Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No remote. Primitive menu system. Weak audio. Very modest brightness."
  20. Stone, M. David (2013-11-22). "Optoma X306ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Rainbow effect in video more severe than is usual. No port for USB thumb drive."
  21. Stone, M. David (2015-01-20). "Optoma GT1080 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Displays rainbow artifacts. Shows posterization in its brightest mode."
  22. Hoffman, Tony (2013-11-22). "Optoma W306ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video, largely due to rainbow effect. Lacks port for USB thumb drive."
  23. Stone, M. David (2015-09-14). "Optoma HD37 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black and white film clips."
  24. Stone, M. David (2015-10-15). "Optoma EH341 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black-and-white film clips."
  25. Hoffman, Tony (2013-05-31). "Optoma ZX212ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Low brightness by today's standards. 3D support limited to PC connection (VGA or HDMI) only."
  26. Hoffman, Tony (2013-08-09). "Optoma S303 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video. Rainbow effect."
  27. Gideon, Tim (2015-11-05). "Optoma NuForce Primo8 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not for bass lovers. Expensive."
  28. Stone, M. David (2011-10-05). "Optoma DP-MW9080A Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Screen material gives off strong chemical odor when new."
  29. Hoffman, Tony (2013-08-16). "Optoma W303 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video. Rainbow effect. Very soft audio."
  30. Stone, M. David (2014-05-06). "Optoma ML1000P Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Touchpad controls are hard to use. Showed scaling artifacts (unwanted patterns added to some screens) at its native resolution in our tests."
  31. Stone, M. David (2013-08-29). "Optoma X304M Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Video is suitable for only short clips. Obvious rainbow artifacts in video."
  32. Stone, M. David (2013-08-29). "Optoma W304M Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Tendency to show rainbow artifacts makes video suitable for short clips only. Underpowered audio."
9. TechRadar reviews:
  1. Carter, Jamie (2021-11-11). "Optoma UHD38 4K projector review: Supersized images that are great for gamers". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Long-throw lens. Some light leakage in a blackout. Average black levels. Fiddly remote."
  2. Carter, Jamie (2021-07-15). "Optoma UHD30 4K projector review: Supersized 4K projection for day or night". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Requires a large room. Greenish 'bright' mode. Poor built-in speaker."
  3. May, Steve (2020-11-09). "Optoma CinemaX P2 4K projector review: Optoma drops the price, but keeps the good stuff". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Less bright than its predecessor. Doesn't support HLG HDR over HDMI. Smart app choice limited."
  4. Dawson, Stephen (2020-07-26). "Optoma UHD50X review: A powerhouse projector aimed squarely at gaming". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "60Hz judder with PAL content. Poor 50Hz de-interlacing. Unevenness in brightness."
  5. Laird, Jeremy (2020-02-24). "Optoma ZK507 review: Optoma's new 4K laser projector packs a serious punch for presentations and video". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Somewhat limited colour fidelity. Manual lens control. Expensive."
  6. Archer, John (2020-03-21). "Optoma UHD52ALV review: The Optoma UHD52ALV shows that projectors are finally getting smart". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black levels merely average. Peak HDR color issues. Audio glitches. Gaming lag."
  7. St Leger, Henry (2018-12-13). "Optoma HD31UST projector review: Ultra short-throw projection for the home". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Blooming around flames and bright light sources. Can't cut down size of projection."
  8. Lynch, Gerald (2018-11-08). "Optoma UHD51A 4K projector with Alexa review: 'Hey Alexa, bring the cinema home'". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Alexa features add little. No digital keystone. Alexa set up issues."
  9. de Looper, Christian (2020-05-26). "Optoma CinemaX P1 review: It isn't cheap, but this short-throw 4K projector is worth the money". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par built-in OS. Limited to HD streaming."
  10. Carter, Jamie (2018-05-11). "Optoma UHZ65 4K Laser Projector review: Is a laser light engine really worth spending extra on?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Huge price tag. No quiet speaker option. Average contrast & black levels. No auto-focus or zoom."
  11. Carter, Jamie (2017-11-21). "Optoma HD142X Projector review: Copious amounts of brightness and contrast make this a great value beamer". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Basic mono speaker. Rainbow effect. Uninspired design. Rudimentary remote control."
  12. Carter, Jamie (2018-11-15). "Optoma UHL55 review: A hands-free home cinema that excels with 4K content". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "HD sources look poor. Black levels not the best. No protective case."
  13. Laird, Jeremy (2020-03-02). "Optoma LH200 review: A robust anywhere, anyplace, anytime projection solution". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Fixed optics. Adequate image quality. Limited battery life."
  14. Carter, Jamie (2018-05-04). "Optoma HD27e Full HD Projector review: Who needs 4K when Full HD can be this much fun?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not exceptionally bright. Some motion blur. 1.1x zoom. Limited to HDMI."
  15. Carter, Jamie (2015-09-01). "Optoma HD36 projector review: Super-bright and with best-in-class speakers, this versatile Full HD DLP impresses". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one HDMI. Big size. Loud fan noise. Fiddly focus ring. Optional 3D & wireless."
  16. May, Steve (2018-02-14). "Optoma HD39Darbee Special Edition Full HD projector review: An all-round crowd-pleaser". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level is inevitably limited. Operating noise is high in full brightness mode."
  17. Browne, Michael (2010-04-30). "Optoma EW330 review: Can a projector designed for life on the road still offer good image quality?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not for use in larger rooms. Gets loud."
  18. Pino, Nick (2014-10-17). "Optoma GT1080 review: A gaming projector with a good short game, but lacking in fundamentals". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Super short range. Excessive heat and noise. Imperfect audio. Poor daytime performance."
  19. Archer, John (2018-07-03). "Optoma UHD60 projector review: It rewrote the 4K HDR projector rule book". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Flimsy top panel. Limited HDR effect. Occasional HDR colour flaw. Slightly high input lag."
10. Additional reviews:
  1. Das, Mehul Reuben (2024-01-15). "Optoma UHZ50+ Laser 4K Projector Review: A solid projector with pro gaming features, stunning visuals". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes: "Cons - In-built speakers are a letdown - Limited vertical shift, no horizontal shift - Zoom and shift functions aren’t motorised."
  2. Dent, Steve (2020-02-26). "Optoma CinemaX P1 review: A stunning 4K projector with terrible apps. Just get a 4K Chromecast or Amazon Fire Stick for it". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes: "Optoma is known for building affordable projectors, so the $3,700 CinemaX P1 might not seem that cheap. ... And while this projector doesn't deliver the picture quality of more costly native 4K long-throw projectors from JVC and Sony, it's brighter than many of those models.Yes, the streaming apps are terrible, but a $70 Chromecast or $40 Amazon Fire Stick solves that problem."
  3. Woodard, Nick (2021-08-26). "Optoma HD39HDR Review: A super bright projector on a budget". IGN. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes: "If you’re purely a gamer that won’t use a projector for anything else, it might make sense to save a few more bucks and wait to invest in a product like the BenQ X1300i or the Optoma UHD38. But if you stream as much as you game, the HD39HDR is a no-brainer at this price. The sheer brightness, ease of setup and use, and exceptional picture quality of the HD39HDR easily outweigh issues like sound quality and unimpressive connections."
  4. Nystedt, Brendan (2018-03-23). "Review: Optoma UHD60 Projector: Got a 4K source you're itching to throw against the wall?". Wired. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The cons summary notes: "It's bigger than you expect. Rainbow effect may or may not impact your viewing experience. Not true pixel-perfect 4K resolution, but good enough. Only one HDMI port supports HDMI 2.2. Remote backlighting is blinding. No keystone correction. Can't they make one in matte black?"
  5. Hall, Parker (2020-07-22). "Review: Optoma UHD50X: The company's latest consumer projector looks better than ever and even offers a 240-Hz refresh rate for PC gamers". Wired. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The cons summary notes: "Requires a dark room, projector screen, and sound system with HDMI pass-through. No high refresh rates for consoles. No G-Sync or FreeSync support."
  6. Hunt, Kevin (2005-12-09). "Projector's Hi-Def Picture Puts Plasma to Shame". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13 – via Newspapers.com.
    The review notes: "Optoma sells a virtually identical projector, the H79, for $10,000 whose only apparent difference is hand-picked optics, deemed the best. ... The Optoma is among the quietest projectors, producing only 25 decibels in standard mode. ... Some analog cable channels look like a snowy mush with the Optoma."
  7. Patterson, Ben (2009-07-31). "25 Best Back-to-School Gadgets: Optoma PK-101 Pico projector". Time. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The article notes: "Just slip Optoma's Pico projector out of your pocket and turn that blank wall in the lounge into an instant movie screen. About the size of a cell phone, the 4-oz. (113 g) PK-101 can project an image up to 60 in. (150 cm) in diameter, at a reasonably sharp (if far short of HD) resolution of 480 pixels by 320 pixels, and it even has a tiny built-in speaker."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Optoma (traditional Chinese: 奧圖碼; simplified Chinese: 奥图码) 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) 10:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are an awful lot of sources included in this discussion, some of which are in off-line sources, and a lot of them are product reviews but it would help to have an editor or two weigh in about whether they can help establish WP:NORG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Coretronic: its parent company. There is no company called "Optoma Corporation" There's one called "Optoma Technology", doing business as Optoma. "Optoma Corporation" is a fiction created by a sneaky editor trying to get around a salted page. The REFBOMBed sources shown here mostly cover the company's products. I did not go over all of them to see if there are three decent SIGCOV ones in there. If there were, I'm guessing we wouldn't be flooded with over 60 low-quality refs. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My position is that the projector brand Optoma is notable through significant coverage in Taiwanese publications as well as numerous product reviews. I linked to 58 product reviews to show that the brand is notable, not to "REFBOMB". There was a recent discussion about using product reviews to establish notability for the company at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Notability of products vis a vis notability of the corporation. I will mention the AfD there. Three editors separately wrote:
  1. "That said, if there are several products by a company, and those products have received sufficient significant coverage such that they are notable as a group or notable independently, I think an article about the company that is effectively a list of those items would meet WP:NLIST."
  2. "I think that your rationale argues for bundling of product articles, not for having an article on the company. That said, if there is GNG coverage of the products, and at least near-GNG coverage on the company, IMPO it would be within the norms in this area (albeit not explicitly supported by the guidelines) to have an article on the company if it is the place that the products are covered."
  3. "I would generally say that the purposes of the encyclopedia are better served by bundling notable products under their manufacturer, and treating the notability of the products as the notability of the company that makes them. This would only apply for products that are, in fact, notable, and discretely made by a single manufacturer."
  Sources published in 2007 and 2011 said the Optoma brand was the second largest projector brand by market share in the world, behind Epson. This strongly contributes to notability.
  Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - Leaning to keep only if the Chinese language sources provided by Cunard are reliable. If the Chinese language sources are not reliable, then I am more than willing to change to a delete vote. None of the tech reviews give notability to the company as they are solely about the product not the company itself. If the article is not deleted, it should also be redirected to Optoma instead as "Optoma Corporation" does not appear to be the common name, and it is only used by their corporate websites. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CountHacker (talk · contribs), I agree with a rename from "Optoma Corporation" to "Optoma". Global Views Monthly [zh] is a Taiwanese magazine. This article from Springer Nature's peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility says, "Another reputable magazine within the same business group as the Common Wealth is the Global Views Monthly, which has also received multiple media awards."
  Economic Daily News [zh] is a Taiwanese business newspaper published by the United Daily News Group, while United Evening News [zh] and Min Sheng Bao are Taiwanese newspapers also published by the United Daily News Group. I consider these four publications to be reliable sources for business topics. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing my vote to keep based on the information & sources provided per Cunard. Seems to have been enough coverage in Taiwanese media. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rewritten article looks much better to me from a quick glance, but I'm not familar generally with Chinese topics. And of course if kept the closing admin should move to Optoma. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while originally I would have agreed with the nominator following the extensive multi-language search and ensuing re-write by Cunard (for which a hearty thanks is in order) I would say that most likely (limited by my ability to only read the google translate versions of some of the articles rather than in their original language) we do have a notable stand alone topic here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 20 April 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 03:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity Network (matchmaking)

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

At first glance this looks well-sourced, however on a closer look except for one source I couldn't access none of them are actually in-depth and independent. Nearly everything is reliant on information provided by the company's founders - the sole exception is the American Banker source which has one paragraph attributed to a third-party analyist

Both of those trends make Citizens' partnership with Opportunity Network stand out. In 2016, Patricia Hines, a senior analyst at Celent, researched the venture capital and private-equity money that was flowing to fintech startups. Only 5% of it, she found, was going to startups working on commercial applications.
"I have not seen anything even close to this," she said, referring to Opportunity Network.

But that by itself is nowhere near enough to support notability. Previously deleted and salted as Opportunity Network * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Websites, Spain, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the references fail the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 22 April 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exotel

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

Under notability I think this qualifies for deletion. There is not significant coverage of this company. Moritoriko (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 April 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. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have restored the references and neutral content which was removed by various users last year and also expanded the page a little. Here are a few references that I have identified which provide significant coverage:
- Sriram, M. (20 January 2022). "The rise, fall and resurrection of a startup: How Exotel persevered through a tumultuous decade". Moneycontrol.
- Nair Ghaswalla, Amrita (19 September 2016). "Cloud telephony co Exotel dials talent for growth". Business Line.
- John, Nirmal (5 February 2016). "Under cover, inside your cellphone". Fortune India.
- Ramakrishnan, N. (2 June 2013). "In the cloud, calling SMEs". Business Line.
- K.J., Shashidhar (26 March 2013). "Meet your next-gen telephone operator". Times of India.
- Bhalla, Tarush (30 November 2022). "Exotel bets big on traditional segments, product bundling to beat macroeconomic impact". The Economic Times.
- Saxena, Radhika (26 July 2012). "Exotel: Your business phone line gets smarter". Moneycontrol.
- Modgil, Shweta (9 September 2016). "The Cloud Will Connect Us All". Inc42.

The company meets the notability criteria and the article can be expanded with these sources. 49.37.249.147 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to get into one by one source and why its not establishing the notability, I can do it. But for now MC is feature and features are paid pieces on MC its declared on their content policy. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you link to the content policy that you are talking about? Also care to elaborate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5ire where you curiously voted keep? 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll do it. Anon IP added some references above but, other than a bald "meets the notability criteria" Ta-Da! assertion, hasn't gone into any detail as to why those references or any other references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. Here's the analysis on the sources above:

This from Moneycontrol is a profile that relies entirely on information provided by the company and a phonecall with the founder. There is insufficient in-depth "Original Content" and it fails our criteria. In reality, this article fits into the category "puff profile" beloved of many tech columnists.
This from Business Line suffer from precisely the same shortcomings. It is also a "puff profile" that relies entirely on information provided by the company and an interview with the Founder CEO and also fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
This from Fortune India is another example of a puff profile that relies entirely on regurgitating information provided by the company and their CEO/investor. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
This next one from Business Line is an early puff profile from 2013. Same failings as the others. No Independent Content, no independent in-depth analysis/commentary/investigation/etc of the company, etc. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
This also from 2013 from Times of India is YAPP (Yet Another Puff Profile) from the company was a start-up and the article simply regurgitates the company's own messaging from that time. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
This from The Economic Times is "part of a series of interviews" - fails ORGIND
This next from Moneycontrol is the earliest yet from 2012, and is another puff profile relying on info from the company/CEO with no content that meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
Finally from Inc42 in 2016 comes YAPP which is entirely based on an interview and fails for the same reason.

No doubt these references were originally removed from the article because they're Company Marketing. This is what companies do, they help papers fill their editions by making themselves available for being interviewed as "The Next Big Thing", everyone loves a success story, etc, but these types of articles are precisely the types that fail our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only trying to rescue the article from deletion, so please spare me the snide remarks.

The references were originally removed by 103.10.119.68 (with promotional edits like this) and User:RN.IN (who is known for adding copyrighted material and writing purely promotional articles). There is no indication that these references were removed because "they're Company Marketing".

According to you, every single source on the page is a "puff profile". Can you please share a few examples of media articles that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH but do not fall under your definition of "puff profile"? Preferably for privately-held startups of comparable size. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are failing to establish brand notability generally, mostly Organic PR with content approval from agencies. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Here are a few more sources with adequate independent commentary and analysis:
- Raghavendra, Sumanth (28 January 2021). "Exotel's US$5.4 million Series B—an unusual startup funding story". The Ken.
- Raghava, Avinash (7 March 2024). The Grit Stories. ISBN 9798893226089.
- Upadhyay, Harsh; Manchanda, Kunal (7 July 2022). "Exotel records 12 fold jump in profits with flat revenue growth in FY21". Entrackr.
- J., Anand (22 March 2018). "Seed money was enough for this startup to break even, build a sustainable B2B biz". TechCircle.

The sources that I have linked all have bylines and are attributed to staff who are unaffiliated with the subject. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get past the paywall on The Ken
A 230 page book that mentions the company and founder several times could be good but again I can't access it
The Entrackr article is trivial as per NCORP, just profits and losses.
I don't think the TechCircle article establishes anything notable about the company either.

If there is some way that I could read the book I would be more than happy to add to the article. Moritoriko (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for being unable to access the first two sources, see WP:PAYWALL/WP:SOURCEACCESS. I have access to the book and it contains a full chapter on Exotel, I can provide the text if you need it. I don't have access to the Ken article but it is a "16 min read", so I expect it to be an in-depth dissection of the company like all other Ken articles of that length. Combining the book source, this Ken article, the 2022 Moneycontrol story and the 2016 Fortune India feature, I believe there is sufficient significant coverage and independent analysis. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not discounting the source because of the paywall, I was merely stating the reason why I didn't give any other opinion on it. Highking has already noted why the Moneycontrol and Fortune India stories are both insufficient. You asked under HighKing's comment about what an appropriate article would look like and I did some searching all the start ups of comparable size that I found didn't have wikipedia pages.

That being said I know I am more deletionist so I'll let everyone else decide what to do. Moritoriko (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant that all startups of comparable size don't have a Wikipedia page. I asked for examples of media coverage of those companies that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Whatfix, for instance, is a startup of comparable size which has also been covered in a chapter in that book I've cited. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several sources added to the page appear to contain promotional content. Some of these sources were previously removed due to concerns about their promotional nature. However, they have now been restored by User:49.37.249.147 in an effort to safeguard the article from potential deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RN.IN (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Sriram, M. (20 January 2022). "The rise, fall and resurrection of a startup: How Exotel persevered through a tumultuous decade". Moneycontrol.
- K.J., Shashidhar (26 March 2013). "Meet your next-gen telephone operator". Times of India.
- Saxena, Radhika (26 July 2012). "Exotel: Your business phone line gets smarter". Moneycontrol.
- D’Monte, Leslie (8 May 2013). "BackBack Telephone calls from the cloud". Livemint.
- Ghoshal, Abhimanyu (27 May 2013). "Smart telephony begins to take shape in India as Exotel launches developer API in beta". The Next Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RN.IN (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 April 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. Consensus is that the article fails to meet WP:NCORP or requires a complete rewrite. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Photography, Companies, Websites, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Biz journal article is repeated in a Lexington newspaper and by Yahoo [22] so feels like a PR item. The rest of the sources given don't impress me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs a complete rewrite and shouldn't have been accepted in its current state, but these reviews [23] [24] seem like enough for a NCORP/NPRODUCT pass. – Teratix ₵ 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article is recase to be about the website but otherwise Delete. The topic of the article 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. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.

both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.

Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.

In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage somebody to consider recasting the article so that it is primarily about the product (the website) and if that were the case I believe it would pass GNG/NCORP as a topic and I've changed my !vote to reflect that. Sometimes it might appear that an article is about the product (i.e. the website) and not about the company, but for me that isn't the case here. The article includes a company template and omits key information about the product while including information which is relevant to company activity such as signing deals and agreements - sure they impacted the product but compare the thrust of the article with the reviews you've pointed to concerning the website. Those reviews write from the point of view of the website. The article omits any mention of features such as reverse image searching, or the recent incorporation of AI, or valid critcisms which have been written about. As it stands, for me, the topic is the company and the company fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Open-access operator#France. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Speed

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP who wrote the following rationale at WT:AFD:

I think there are 2 issues with this article, but I'm not sure of the procedure to follow so I prefer to post there : {1} It's a new compagny with no effective product or service: testing is expected to begin in 2026, before commercial service in 2028. The use of nearly only the futur tense or verbs with conditionnal or future meaning as ("would", "planned", "is expected"...) shows that. {2} It seems that the subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. International Railway Journal is a media of limited interest (trade magazine for railway industry) and the content seems more promotional than informative. Quechoisir is a French media with a national audience but the mention is anecdotical. La Tribune is a French economic media but the coverage is not significant. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These are press releases about funding, likely TOOSOON. The project could end up not getting off the ground or going bust before trains start rolling. Oaktree b (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't gone through a full review of the available sourcing yet, but redirection to Open-access operator#France might be a suitable ATD in the event no suitable sources exist. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, to address {2}. Slasher-fun (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This sounds like a promising enterprise. even if it would not gett off the ground, it would be an example of efforts.Keep and reinforce the ontitionnal if you like. Meerwind7 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I think there could be potential for a prose section at Open-access operator§France (Or split out into X in France) with a few lines about this particular company, but I don't see enough sourcing for a standalone article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but I'm leaning to a Redirect. Not sure what "ontitionnal" means though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open-access operator#France; there is coverage [25] [26], but i'm not sure if GNG or NCORP is passed. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Companies proposed deletions

[1] Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[2] Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[1]

[2]

@@ 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/Genesis_Health_Clubs_-_Orlando_Sportsplex}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bubang_Techron_Co.}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZPY-LP}}