Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Companies. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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[edit]

TokenEx[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP.

References include: - Two local news articles (Tulsa World, The Oklahoman) - Two trade press article (PYMNTS, SatelliteTODAY) - One press release (PRNewswire)

Most coverage is brief and concerns partnerships with other companies. Brandon (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and Oklahoma. Brandon (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Airconditioners[edit]

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

BLAR was reverted, bringing it to AfD. Does not fulfill WP:NCORP due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Redirect to Fujitsu#Fujitsu General Broc (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Japan, and India. Broc (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Fujitsu#Fujitsu General. I can not find any significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. Sources are poor to unreliable on the page. RangersRus (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fujitsu#Fujitsu General per nom; brand was established in the 1960s to establish an 'English name' and over time, people became fine with Fujitsu as part of it. About as standard a brand story as you can get. Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Assembly Line[edit]

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

No sources, fails WP:NCORP. A search is tough due to the generic name, but what I could find was only trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alientrap[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP, a search for sources only turned up primary ones in the form of interviews, and mentions in unreliable outlets. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbeard Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP heavily with a lack of significant coverage about the company itself. They only seem known for the fine they paid to the FTC. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Show Tickets[edit]

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

This is an article created by recently banned User:Nytix, who appears to have a clear conflict of interest. The article has been around for 15 years, and has a lot of stuff in it, but without accumulating any meaningful reliable and verifiable in-depth sourcing about the company; nor are there any meaningful links from other Wikipedia articles showing that the company is integrated into the encyclopedia. The businesses website appears to be entirely oriented towards selling tickets.

My WP:BEFORE search on Google didn't turn up anything meaningful to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New York. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI and PROMO, this is also a seriously out-of-date article (1iota handles most TV show ticketing these days, online, and networks generally don't cooperate with independent resellers because it's 2024 and they can manage tickets online). Nate • (chatter) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we dont handle TV show tickets anymore - but we ran TV show ticketing for many shows for years in the early days - where are we saying that we do TV show tickets now? 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you arent really reading the wikipedia page - just glancing at it. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do TV shows anymore - we are 100% focused on Broadway show marketing - I would edit the wikipedia page to make it even clearer, but you have locked our account. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Show_Tickets we do say however state, "Today, NYTIX sells Broadway show tickets and provides discount offers to Broadway shows through an online information guides (accessible through their website) that explain how to get discounted tickets to Broadway shows"

I am not sure how that is stating we do TV show ticketing. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, Advertising, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We now cover Broadway shows in New York City and our news stories have nothing to do with selling tickets https://www.nytix.com/news 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it is an incorrect statement to say that

"The businesses website appears to be entirely oriented towards selling tickets" 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also - the statement that there is no "meaningful reliable and verifiable in-depth sourcing about the company" is incorrect - we attempted to add the DUNS link, but editors removed it. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems whenever we attempt to include a reference or link - its gets blocked by editors. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this page is not acceptable, but another similar organization is acceptable - we fashioned our page on theirs as we imagined that was the correct method - their page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TodayTix

We attempted to add a reference from NBC that you deleted - I don't understand why:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/the-scene/broadway-cheap-how-to-score-discount-tickets-to-a-show/3684562/

Please advise. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As that and many other references have not been allowed to be added to this page. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We were banned because we tried to update the content - not much of reason to get banned - it was accurate content 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly I see tons of mentions on Wikipedia about NYTIX over the years at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?go=Go&search=nytix&ns0=1

Why is no one else seeing that? I am very confused. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Break from self-conversation[edit]

Comment You're not supposed to edit your own articles because that's a clear conflict of interest, and Nytix, you are not allowed to evade a block with an IP. And the WNBC piece is a clear advertorial piece, not a news story. Nate • (chatter) 16:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the NBC article that you mentioned, which does verify one of the statements in this Wikipedia article. We cannot cite Wikipedia articles, or any other crowd-sourced websites. If you have other mainstream news or feature articles about NYTIX, please cite them here, and I'll help you by reviewing them, and, if appropriate, adding them to the article. Try to keep calm, and do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable business awards (according to the article itself, "approximately 30-40% of entries receive an award"). A few newspaper articles, but otherwise it seems only recipients give a damn. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "There are entry fees in seven of the Stevie Awards competitions, and winner fees in two. Entry fees for a Stevie in 2003 ranged from $200 to $400. As of 2023, entry fees range up to $600. There is an additional fee for attending the optional awards ceremony." This suggests to me that it is a money-making scheme. Athel cb (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Business. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Keep. Agreed, awards you have to pay to win aren't worth having, in my opinion, and are just a type of PR. However, to delete on that basis is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. However: there is some coverage from reliable, independent publications i.e. New York Times, Washington Post, New York Post; the awards have been around a long time; many businesses seem to think it is worth winnning (based on the number of press releases from companies that have 'won' one); Wikipedia is one of the few sources where readers can find out about the true nature of the awards. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely weak sourcing, no perceived notability. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [1] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Square 9 Softworks[edit]

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

PRODed this one four years ago. Recreated by the company's marketing officer. Still fails the notability guidelines for companies. – Teratix ₵ 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Connecticut. – Teratix ₵ 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any notability of it. Only article I can find that even mentions it is this which I doubt is reliable enough for inclusion. Half the websites I find upon Googling it are just review websites. Procyon117 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus ineligible as a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:TRADES, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, or otherwise fail the tests of eligibility under WP:ORGTRIV. Nothing comes up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlgoSec[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP and lacks any reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), New Jersey, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benzinga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is my opinion that this article falls short of the WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH standards in regarding to sourcing and significant coverage. Some of the sourcing comes from the Benzinga site itself, other coverage is minimal and does not go into any great depth. At least one major contributor to the article was paid to polish the text (and that person has since been blocked). I welcome the conversation on the editorial merits of this article. Thank you. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Finance, Companies, Websites, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
note that a previous version of this article was deleted.

I agree that nearly all available souces with exeption of CRJ article (which trashed Benzinga as reliable news source, in some depth) don't meet standards. Two or three other secondary sources ARE reputable sources, but mostly is just brief, superficial coverage of a Benzinga press release about its aquisition. These items don't confirm, (but merely "report") info in press release. The SEC I suppose is a "primary source," certainly reliable.

Nearly all other sources here are junky.

The assertion above, that somebody was "paid" to work on this article, seems plausible but unknowable, and thus in some sense incorrect. 212.95.5.96 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(cont. from june 30) I vote for "delete" based on poor sourcing & other qualities.

213.142.97.157 (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityScorecard[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:CORP. Only the citation to TechCrunch would appear to be vaguely reliable. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. As to the citations in the article: ArsTechnica is actually more reliable than TechCrunch (ArsTechnica is rated as generally reliable, while TechCrunch is rated as marginally reliable on WP:RSP). However, none of the three citations provide significant coverage. Source 1 is WP:ORGTRIV (it talks about a standard transaction, namely "a capital transaction, such as raised capital"). Source 2 only mentions Security Scorecard with regard to something else, and Source 3 is a listicle. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the analysis conducted by Epicgenius. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eleven (company)[edit]

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

I failed to find WP:SIGCOV besides simple announcements, sponsored articles, and primary source interviews. This indicates a failure of WP:ORGTRIV, which excludes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". Notability is also not inherited from the games themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete‎. Speedily deleted by User:Justlettersandnumbers as unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Haven[edit]

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

Non-notable dairy company, heavy in puffery and promotional language. All references except one (which is also not independent of the subject) are to the company's website; was also unable to find any independent sources that are about this company. There are some for a dairy company of the same name in Pennsylvania which doesn't have an article, but none for this company. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most of the references are the company's official website, a non reliable source. I Don't think this article is objective and neutral enough to be on Wikipedia. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G11. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying you're wrong, but I thought about nominating the article for G11 but decided not to because there is a controversy section and not every sentence includes promotional language. I could nom it for G11 now if you think it is necessary, and I would've if this article was 2 days old instead of 20, though I guess age is not really a criterion for G11. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Full of Promotional, G11 applies here. GrabUp - Talk 10:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:G11 applies, this is heavily promotional with no evidence of any notability guidelines being met here. Let'srun (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per WP:G11. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per nom. Page reads as promotion and advertising. WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per nominator and WP:G11, it looks like the page is written as an advertisement. Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV in reliable third-party online sources. The results of an internet search are mostly from self-published sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Definitely reads like an advertisement and WP:G11 should apply here. Waqar💬 17:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Totally promotional article about a diary producing company or thereabout, created by a new editor after escaping the AFC process. The sources are blogs by the company, and the body reads like advert. Such article needs salting to avoid recreation, which may be the latter one day. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:53, 3 July 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.

Audio Eagle Records[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. It's mentioned in a few interviews with Carney, and there's this very short article on Cleveland Scene about it. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Patrick Carney or The Black Keys. toweli (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, United States of America, Ohio, and Tennessee. toweli (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Patrick Carney. Option to keep if more sources are found. Why is this at AfD at all? Chubbles (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patrick Carney, then delete to prevent restoration. Absolutely fails WP:NCORP. The suggested target is also tarnished by public relations editing activity, so that page needs to be carefully scrutinized for potential GNG fail. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flexcon[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable business, article created for promotional purposes. -- Beland (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backflip Studios[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD brought up several interviews, but those are primary sources, and arguments used there do not rise to our current standards. Besides the one SIGCOV Dean Takahashi piece brought up in the previous AfD, it appears to fail WP:NCORP with just trivial mentions and announcements of their closure. Merge to Hasbro perhaps? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Colorado. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hasbro , since the firm was acquired by Hasbro and the purchase and its subsequent closing were mentioned on that page. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured Music (label)[edit]

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

Can be merged to Black Hole Recordings or Manufactured Superstars with little information. The label doesn't show any significant importance for it's own article, neither there are any sources. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 12:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just put some sources on there earlier. Dogperson160 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a new article that is still being worked on, but I see no reason why it shouldn't redirect to Manufactured Superstars. I removed the list of 160 songs from the label as clearly excessive. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just put it back. This wasn’t the only article about a music label to have all of the releases on it. Dogperson160 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't believe any record label article on Wikipedia should list all of their releases – that contravenes WP:NOTDATABASE and isn't what Wikipedia is for. The focus should be on a discussion of the label. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Manufactured Superstars. Nothing wrong with Wikipedia providing discographical information, which is encyclopedic, but the roster of artists for this label is underwhelming and I don't see a strong case that it needs a separate article from its founding members. Chubbles (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete history prevent future public relations activity. Target is barely notable. Graywalls (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbarian Group[edit]

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

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⁺⁺ 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Advertising, and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clappers Records[edit]

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

I just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements. Variety312 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devart Ltd.[edit]

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

Doesn't Meet WP:NCORP. All I find it self-published sources, press releases and listings. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreation of content previously deleted and salted at Devart/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devart * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:54, 26 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abby's Pizza[edit]

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

Non-notable pizza chain; doesn't satisfy WP:NORG or WP:SIGCOV. The current references are trivial and/or repeated from press releases and I can find nothing else. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local business which doesn't really pass WP:NORG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked for some less-than-trivial mentions in newspapers.com but I am coming up empty. An article on "Willamette Valley-Style Pizza" might have better traction, actually. It's been written about quite a bit. I'll look a bit more but I don't think this could pass WP:NORG. Valfontis (talk) 05:58, 27 June 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.

Vasa Denticity[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. The closest GNG appearing source is #1 which appears to be a copy of their self-bio. The others are just financial announcements etc. Creater is indeffed for COI promotional editing. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile[edit]

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

This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evernew Pictures[edit]

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

Fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth. On a related note, this film production company produced some films that do not even meet WP's standards of notability. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul. I agree with Saqib's assessment. This is a company so it has to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Unfortunately, the coverage is trivial and mostly related to Evernew Studios which is a notable topic. I still think there might be some offline coverage which we are missing in a simple before so please redirect it to Agha G. A. Gul for now. 2400:ADCC:144:8200:8483:7158:CABA:36A (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evernew Studios or Agha G. A. Gul, both of them are notable topics and already have reliable references. I agree both with Saqib's above nomination and the other above Wikipedia editor's suggestion of a Redirect...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A&B Productions[edit]

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

Clearly fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Raza Mir - the coverage is mostly related to its founder Asif Raza Mir so redirect for now. Fails WP:NCORP due to trivial coverage. 202.47.46.115 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asif Raza Mir, I agree...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITT Healthcare[edit]

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

Stub created by a paid account, seemingly no notability whatsoever. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Technology, and South Korea. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete:~~ As a public KOSDAQ company, coverage exists. This would appear to scrape notability for companies, but sourcing I could locate is way too dependent on press releases such as https://www.arabnews.com/ejada-and-infinitt-forge-health-care-links. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) - Weak keep CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs searches in the Korean language. Try googling "인피니트헬스"; you get much more results. [2][3][4][5][6][7] I am mindful of the fact that the page is tainted by a paid creator, but it doesn't read excessively complimentary to me on a quick glance. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and [6] are press release, [2] is about the CEO, and I have reservation on [3] and [4] as routine stock coverage. [5] is good and I did not see it before: changing my vote. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the article is short and incomplete I do believe the subject itself doesn't violet the notability guidelines for companies as it is a a public company with some coverage, but it should be improved and expanded. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Squid (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP - mainly sourced to trivial announcements that don't count towards the notability of corporations. After a BEFORE, I am still not seeing the notability here, with the most major article about Matt Nava specifically rather than the company itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Abzû, their most successful game. As it is, the sources don't meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beachhead Solutions[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. However, I found enough sources for PROD to perhaps not be warranted:

brief mention in WSJ

A short mention in a 2006 piece from The Mercury News: Beachhead Solutions in Santa Clara sells a $129-a-year service, Lost Data Destruction, which enables an administrator to send a command to destroy data on a laptop that has been stolen. If the thief tries to hook the laptop up to the Internet, it will send a message to the administrator and trigger the data destruction. – Teratix ₵ 12:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. – Teratix ₵ 12:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terwin (corporation)[edit]

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

The Terwin corporation doesn't meet NCROP - no reliable independent of the subject sources; advertisement, Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The corporation is notable, it meets WP:ORGCRIT— it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the corporation. It is one of the biggest corporations in Ukraine with $1,6 billion assets and $1,7 billion revenue (2023). Before the Russian invasion, the revenue exceeded $2 billion. Nowadays, the corporation is building logistics hubs in four regions of Ukraine (Odesa, Lviv, Dnipro, Kyiv) with a total investment of more than $500 million. Of course, this and other activity of the corporation has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Perohanych (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, share please 3 best sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT 167.86.184.60 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of them can be considered as secondary, independent of the subject, and with quite significant coverage of the corporation.

I am not sure if it is an extra argument, but simple Google Search gives 3800+ results --Perohanych (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: per WP:NCORP. There is enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Most is in Russian or Ukrainian. See Google news. C F A 💬 16:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the company notability per WP:NCORP. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. Google News is not a measure of notability. Every source should be analyzed, and I have done this, concluding that all the sources met in the page and here provided by the author, are only superficial mentions or routine announcements with no single source providing in-depth, independent media coverage. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Let's analyse every mentioned source:
1. The text of European Business Association is entirely devoted to Tervin and provides enough about the size of the corporation.
2. This text of Forbes is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's composition, assets and revenue, as well as information about the founders
3. This text of Liga is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's history
4. This text of New Voice is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the largest companies that make up the corporation
5. This text of Interfax is entirely devoted to co-operation of Tervin and the state Agency on investments.
All the media are independent. There are much more sources --Perohanych (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiseday Financial Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company. References are primary sources (press releases). Runmastery (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Runmastery (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: References don't appear to be accessible at all: the URLs just link to home pages. The titles do appear to indicate press releases on the most part, coming from Cision, a public relations company.

Article is a bit promotional, but there is one legitimate source I could find, plus some routine coverage of it raising funding

Likely should be deleted, but doesn't have *no* sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be kept if there are any more of those (which is probably false, unfortunately) Mrfoogles (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SEO junk, and the original editor has all the signs of being a pay-for-player writing up articles in exchange for payment. Nate • (chatter) 16:54, 3 July 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.

Upwave[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).

A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).

Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect "Survata" there instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and California. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Projexity[edit]

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

nn dead business - Altenmann >talk 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1. You have to actually say why it should be deleted, not just cite the notability guideline.

2. This article actually has a few decent sources, and a few more can be found by googling:

- https://www.blogto.com/tech/2013/04/new_website_aims_to_foster_city_building_in_toronto/, a full article on it

- https://web.archive.org/web/20170309094042/http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/episodes/2013/04/04/crowd-sourcing/, a CBC interview

- https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2015/06/projexity-platform-grassroots-urban-initiatives.16288, an interview article with a few paragraphs of exposition (independent) that can be used

- https://web.archive.org/web/20170613192928/https://gridphilly.com/grid-magazine/2013/4/9/a-blossoming-vision-for-south-philly-high-school.html, a description of its use in a school

Pretty sure this satisfies notability, based on the sources that are already there and a google search. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also https://web.archive.org/web/20210802231748/https://torontoist.com/2013/07/kensington-market-tries-to-crowdfund-its-fight-against-riocan-and-walmart/, which is a pretty good one Mrfoogles (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont find these sources satisfy GNG, for a number of reasons. For example all of them are old and local, and the project died decade ago. - Altenmann >talk

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an inactive topic is not a valid deletion reason. The same logic could lead to deletion of all our history-related articles. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- please don't cherry-pick / red-herring: the nom was nn dead. Of course we have on plenty of out-of-business articles. A bit below I also replied why I think it does not satisfy GNG. - Altenmann >talk 22:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Defunct or not, I don't see this enterprise as meeting notability. The sourcing isn't helpful; an interview, a primary source and a non-Rs blog-type website. This is all I could find [8], still lacking enough RS to cover this in order to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing close to a WP:NCORP pass in the sources brought up in this AfD, and the article's current state is mostly branding language. -- asilvering (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zugara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some days ago, Wikilover3509 (talk · contribs) tried to nominate this article for deletion, but ended up editing a previous nomination for a previous article at this title. Their rationale follows:

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.

This is mostly procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment beyond noting that this has been tagged as, among other things, a possible WP:CORP failure since 2012. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this company not noteworthy for inclusion when other similar advertising/technology companies such as The Barbarian Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Barbarian_Group) and AR software companies such as Metaio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio) and Total Immersion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Immersion_(augmented_reality) seem to be fine? MHSzymczyk (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MHSzymczyk That is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not a valid argument. If you can show significant coverage in reliable sources, that would be much more convincing. Toadspike [Talk] 12:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The Venture Beat articles are RS, they're mentioned about the virtual dressing rooms in the NY Times article. The virtual dressing room seems to have gotten traction, I'd say we have just barely enough to pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the VB website is RS but which one of the stories meets GNG/NCORP? There are 4 stories, I can't figure out which one you might be referring to, for me the all fail either/or CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. The virtual dressingroom details are all derived from their Press Release on their patent grant. The NYT article mentions the company once, because it included a quote from the company's CEO. Fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous relist has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:15, 26 June 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. Article is REFBOMBED so I won't provide a source analysis but if anyone feels there are sources that have been overlooked or missed, please link below and indicate which page/paragraph contains content that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough significant coverage at this time. The results of internet searches are either self-published, blogs, and mere brief mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:36, 28 June 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.

Lybrate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. also look like an advertisement! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One source that doesn't look like an ad: this one. So at least one source of significant coverage. The other articles could have been paid for, but might not all be: even if they sound ad-like, they could still be reliable coverage: we don't know. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mrfoogles You are again sharing the funding related link from the source whose reliability is questionable as per WP:RSPSS I can't see any research done by a journalist. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion so we really need to hear from more editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is significant coverage of the company that passes WP:GNG. The suggestion that some of the sources are likely to be paid for or sponsored posts without clear evidence of such should not be the reason to delete. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just barely. Despite 38 references, almost all of them would be excluded for WP:NCORP purposes under WP:ORGTRIV, WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. However, this Forbes India staff-authored print magazine story, this cover story in The Week, and this Financial Express story clear the bar for WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh James (law firm)[edit]

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

Coverage in the sources given and my before search are routine for a law firm, such as opening new offices, new hires etc. The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources. There is very extensive coverage in The Times. There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week. There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline. There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News. There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm. The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has. That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one. It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: [9]. James500 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins. It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources. I have a lot to do at the moment. However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales, Legal profession in Wales, Legal sector in Wales, Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite. That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg [10] and other sources, including more modern ones. James500 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The search you ran does not bring up all the results in The Times that Google brings up. In the following, I shall confine my attention to The Times, as you requested. The following articles are profiles of Hugh James in The Times: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. These are entire periodical articles entirely about the firm. Such articles are in depth, secondary coverage. I am not aware of any notability guideline that requires more than four paragraphs of coverage. Whether they are independent would depend on whether Alan Collins had any influence over them. I do not know the answer to that question yet. The following articles are about the case of "Edwards on behalf of the Estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)" in which the law firm Hugh James Ford Simey was sued for negligence: [16] [17]. The following article is about the internal affairs of the firm: [18]. There are also a lot of articles in The Times about litigation conducted by Hugh James on behalf of clients. For example, at one point they acted for 6,500 people in the Seroxat case, which has a lot of coverage everywhere. James500 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online [19], for example. Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources presented by James500.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last attempt at looking for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The new references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: which 'new references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a basic misunderstanding of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, which is based on the existence of coverage, not necessarily used in the Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the recent references significantly improve the article's notability. Waqar💬 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: which 'recent references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company (law firms are still companies/organizations) 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.

It appears that James500 above misses half the point of "Independent" sources - not only must we show that the publication is independent but that the content is also independent. The profiles pointed to in The Times above are part of the Top Law Firms series but the profile is a regurgitation of what the company says about itself and then it simple lists activity and cases in which they had clients to represent. There is no in-depth information *about* the *company* in these profiles. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The next two articles also comment on *cases* in which the company had clients to represent, they do not provide in-depth information about the company. The next article is an interview with their HR Director - no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND.

We require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company* (not their principals, not cases they've been involved in, not their clients, etc). None of the other Keep !voters have identified any sources nor put forward an argument that is supported by guidelines or sources. None of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With one exception, all I see are the humdrum company activities that are carried in trade papers and journals - company moves; company expands; company does X. I don't see any in depth analysis that would stand out. The only exception is one I cannot access, but it is a very recent report that the firm is being sued Law360. Should that suit get wide coverage there may be (ironically) enough to source an article. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc.[edit]

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

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that they got fairly insignificant coverage in passing in articles focused on other topics. With the majority of mentions being trivial ones, it seems likely that this article would not be supported had all the mentions been positive versus negative. I do not believe it's an argument in reverse -- without the coverage involving the acquisition of Epik, this would have been too thin to merit a Wikipedia article. WP:INHERITORG absolutely applies. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.

To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.

Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying my reply to here as this comment was also cross-posted by User:Amigao on the Registered Agents Talk page.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page). I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism. CapnPhantasm (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider this yourself. And, it is not casting aspersions, as anyone can review the history of the article to see that I have accurately described what you were doing. Desist with giving me "advice" while you keep flouting Wiki guidelines. CapnPhantasm (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP. The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. This Wired article and others such as this also contain sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet the criteria as well as the Washington Post article. If the article is not kept, a redirect to Epik as per ATD should be established. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a problem with multiple sources essentially reporting upon what they do not find -- they imply someone (an employee) does not exist, but cannot prove a negative. Other articles involved are specifically focused on other topics/entities, but the reporters are stymied by being unable to see who the company owners are because of how registered agents legally function -- it is clear that if they could see company ownership directly they would not mention the registered agent at the end of their search. If this is the main thrust of the mentions of this company along with other registered agent companies in the same articles, then this is insufficient despite the typical reliability of the sources involved.

The Wired articles read as biased, hearsay, and inherently speculitive -- again, this is not sufficient. Those were ealier cited in an Afd discussion on the supposed notability of the Dan Keen article (this article was cited earlier above - he was purported to be the company owner), but were ultimately deemed by consensus as insufficient for this purpose because they were full of hearsay and too speculative to be depended upon whilst the company's attorney stated categorically he was not the owner. If the Wired articles were indeed too undependable for use establishing notability for the Dan Keen article, they are insufficient for propping up a thin article on Registered Agents, too, for the very same reasons.

Some of the arguments here seem to be at the level of "they are mentioned in a number of reliable sources, so that is enough to merit a Wikiped article." This isn't so -- the mentions themselves have to be sufficient. Else, we would likewise have an article about Chris Xu who is the founder of Shein and who is mentioned in a great many articles from reliable sources. Like Xu, being mentioned is not enough in of itself - the coverage has to be reliable, substantial, and significant enough to assert notability.

Some of the ICIJ article merely reiterates the same content from the Wyoming article, so multiple paragraphs are less than what is being suggested. It likewise reports upon not being able to establish that an employee existed or not.

Collecting a bunch of trivial mentions, regardless of coming from august sources, does not seem sufficient basis to keep. As another mentioned earlier, if the source facts were all positive ones with the same level of insignificance/triviality, this article would not stand as it would appear thin puffery that does not meet the hurdles of household name status or marginal notability. It may be that some are motivated to keep out of some sort of latent activism, but neutrality suggests that if this was not sufficient for similar levels of mentions casting a company in a positive light, it should not be sufficient for a company in a negative light either. WmLawson (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not dealing with articles that don't exist, per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. (If Chris Xu is notable, then someone can make an article about him.) We're dealing with the straightforward question of whether RAI is notable. I've read the sources (all mentioned in my !vote above) and I consider them reliable, and they are certainly significant coverage. By the way, I !voted "delete" in the Dan Keen AfD because the sourcing didn't support notability for a standalone article for him. I think it absolutely does on this subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...not dealing with articles that don't exist..." is a straw man argument as the point was that a subject could be mentioned in many sources, but each of the mentions are insufficient to establish notability, and a quantity of mentions does not add up in itself to notability. Xu was just an example of this because the coverage about Shein frequently mentions him or talks about him, but the main thrust of those articles is not him.

Regardless, you previously argued the coverage was WP:NSUSTAINED which should also apply here as the majority of sustained coverage (if we would call it that for articles where the company is not the main subject and nothing is particularly proven/established in the articles being cited about the company) is primarily from this spring, and it is hard to understand why you discount the Wired articles earlier but now consider them sufficient for this purpose.

As the earler Afd comments demonstrated, the Wired articles have severe deficiencies as mentioned by BBQboffin, voorts and Otr500 such as not meeting SIGCOV as a number of the articles are a series of collaborations by the same authors/organizations which does not meet GNG as separate sources, and the articles are based off of questionable sources only while making utterly trivial statements that cannot possibly meet encyclopedic notability by focusing almost solely upon statements from apparently disgruntled employees with no verification ("micromanagement", "shifts in mood", "dresses modestly... wearing shorts and flannel shirts..", "passive aggressive approach with staff", "described as inappropriate", "misogynistic..", etc). Wired may often reflect journalistic integrity and be typically reliable, but for this topic depending on those articles for virtually anything gives undue weight to a clearly biased couple of articles from the same authors, which is why they weren't accepted for a biography article.

The intro section of the article also demonstrates its main basis for notability is WP:COATRACK for its subsidiary, Epik. That shouldn't be considered in assessing the notability as acquiring a notable subsidiary does not establish independent topic notability per WP:INHERITORG.

Wikipedia is supposed to be something of a lagging indicator of notability, and this seems like an exemplar. Until more significant coverage occurs this should not be an article. WmLawson (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally made a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, please don't gaslight us. As for Wired, it is considered by editors here to be a perennial reliable source and is known for its fact-checking practices, so without countervailing evidence contradicting the Wired story (which no one has supplied), I believe we can take it as reliable on this topic. Anonymous sourcing is a legitimate journalistic practice and does not rule out an otherwise reliable source. Finally, I said nothing about NSUSTAINED (please read carefully), but that policy refers to a "sufficiently significant period of time," and the WP:SIRS coverage spans from 2020 to the present, which is more than sufficiently sustained to meet the policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sources appear substantial enough to meet NCORP. The ICIJ source, for example, spends multiple paragraphs to establish this specific company as not just a convent example, but as a noteworthy example of its industry. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 3 from Wired is the only one strictly about the Registered Agents company, the rest focus on Epik (that they bought) or some not so nice things the company is said to be involved with. I don't find much else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge with Epik. These two companies don't appear to have separate notability. Even if Registered Agents, Inc. were to have marginal notability on its own, WP:NOPAGE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; I think that covering the two companies in one article would both provide the users with a better overall understanding and reduce maintenance required by avoiding unnecessary content duplication across two articles. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Striking in favor of keeping. Will expand on why later; I don't have the time at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though the editor who proposed this RfC framed it in relation to Epik, the bulk of the media coverage here is not about RAI's acquisition of Epik and good deal of it pre-dates the acquisition. There is sufficient WP:RS coverage for it to be a stand-alone article at this point. - Amigao (talk) 02:05, 28 June 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Through probably what is one of the oddest coincidences I have experienced on Wikipedia, I encountered the 30 N Gould Street, Sheridan, WY address independently when I noticed that it was related to lots of fraudulent and/or generally sketchy activity. This activity is covered in a variety of reliable sources, including The Sheridan Press (1, 2, 3), Reuters (via KSL, via The Malaysian Star), Overdrive, Esquire, The Washington Post, and the Gillette News-Record. I began to wonder to myself is it possible for an address to be notable but not the physical building itself? And I concluded that it was, given all of the coverage of it and the various scams that run through it. I then began to look back through Wikipedia to see if this was covered anywhere and, lo and behold, it was covered here. For reasons entirely unrelated to the acquisition of Epik, the address (and the registration agent operating out of it) had received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events.
The text of the current article puts a lot of weight on the acquisition of Epik. That's probably a mistake in terms of article content focus (at least in terms of covering the great variety of items associated with that address), but I now realize that the sourcing is quite clear: this article can exist as a standalone, and should exist as a standalone, due to substantial non-overlap with Epik in terms of what our coverage ought be. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Companies proposed deletions[edit]