Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crealogix

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crealogix

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. While the company exists, this seems to be essentially a paragraph of history based on various press-releases occasionally through churnalism services. Nothing indicates this is anything but a glorified WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES with a list of said press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The routine announcements and Q&A-format piece by a company executive are not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are finding more announcements of acquisitions and divestments and some speculation in early 2018 but I am not seeing the WP:RS coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned up the article, removing some marketing-speak and improving readability. This reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and if another analyst report can be found (or another reference that meets NCORP] then I will change to !vote Keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: I am not sure if such reports are not WP:ROUTINE. It's like saying that an investment fund prospect (brochure) is a reliable source for notability about that fund. Such reports may not be independent, and/or can be very routine in some fields. Edison Investment Research, like many companies in Securities research, produces such reports on a routine basis. I'd be very hesitant to say that are sufficient for notability (through I'd consider them reliable for information in general). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: Analyst reports aren't routine. Anyway WP:LISTED says they are acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 12 December 2018 (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.