Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silktide

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 13:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silktide

[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)

Promotional article, with extensive content additions by SPAs. Previous versions included huge swathes of primary-sourced WP:BROCHURE that have been removed from the current version; what's left is the single publicity campaign listed in the article. No evidence of notability. From a WP:BEFORE, RS coverage appears to be solely said single publicity campaign listed in the article; no coverage that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No in-depth coverage apart from the BBC piece. 15 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline in my opinion. First I thought it might just be Oliver's private consulting business, since it is private, but indications it might have a dozen or so employees. Any web site is "worldwide" so that is common puffery. There are a few mentions in publications like Forbes, but this article really has not much left to salvage. Too bad for a company supposedly around for 20 years? Would support delete and start over if they ever do get notable enough. W Nowicki (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2021 (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.