Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RouteNote (3rd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. As this is due to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing not improved since the previous two nominations. Sources are either press releases, not significant coverage, or a bunch of quotes from the founder and hence not independent content. Consider salting so we don't end up here yet again. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two previous AFDs closed as Delete but HighKing, who rarely advocates Keep, is doing so that is worth another week of consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, was away so only responding now. I have not read the sections on the topic company in those reports - they are paywalled. Analyst reports can either provide short brief mentions of companies in a marketplace (which may be too short or generic for the purposes of establishing notability), or they produce a section on each company which is usually accompanied by an analysis of their offering and positioning. In both examples, a section on the company is included as you can see from the Table of Contents. There is also a report from Allied Market Research which also includes a chapter. I'm happy to stick with my !vote on the basis that the analyst reports exist and I expect them to be sufficiently independent and in-depth, purely based on my experience with analyst reports in the past. HighKing++ 11:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 4 September 2023 (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.