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

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!} 22:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TRENDS Research & Advisory

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

Not notable. Un assiolo (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Un assiolo (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Un assiolo, do you have any policy-based evidence to support your claim? Just saying "not notable" is not very helpful. C F A 💬 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? This is a borderline A7. The sources are all press releases, a LinkedIn (which I have now removed), the company website, and a few company profiles (on websites that collect them indiscriminately). Adding something along the lines of the three sentences suggested at WP:JN would not, in my opinion, add anything of substance to the nomination. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability whatsoever. Also is one of them seriously a job listing??? Procyon117 (talk) 09:53, 12 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste Henry

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

Not notable. Un assiolo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and India. Un assiolo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting corporate notability, I can only find a database listing [1], their Linkedin and an Imdb profile for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, G11, G5, take your pick. It's spam for an unremarkable company, by this week's sockpuppet of Btw Santhosh, and mainly sourced as usual with Santhosh's dire news-skinned blogs. Wikishovel (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think "India's largest advertising company" disqualifies it from A7 (though it might not actually be true), and there is some non-advert content, disqualifying it from G11. If it really is a sockpuppet, then of course G5 applies. I was not aware of any alleged sockpuppetry which is why I nominated it at AfD instead of requesting speedy deletion. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A7 would apply in my opinion, because the claim of "India's largest advertising company" is simply not credible. But I didn't mean to criticise you for bringing it to AFD: that was a perfectly valid action based on your assumptions. Wikishovel (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Only promotional content is there.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Obviously promotional content per G11. Haruka Amaranth 02:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 21:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nom Master rollo (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can locate meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:55, 15 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.

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. – Joe (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cityscape Global

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

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. Ciudatul (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ciudatul (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; no coverage of any kind in sources other than obscure and likely unreliable tech blogs. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of in-depth coverage; easily meets WP:NCORP. See Google news (ex: [2][3][4][5][6][7] etc.). It might need a bit of cleanup but deletion is certainly not warranted. I don't think the nominator did a WP:BEFORE. C F A 💬 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 8 is too buggy to open without registering, 9 appears to be a trade journal (not a RS), 10 is a brief PR item, as is 11. 12 is fine I suppose. 13 is a staff report about an award given out, somewhat related. Most of these are not terribly helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though there is a lot of coverage online of this event. The articles above were just a few I found by skimming the first page of Google news. For example, here is another article from Arab News, here is one from Gulf News, here is one in the Entrepreneur magazine, here is one in the Gulf Business magazine, here is one from Gulf Today, and the list goes on and on. The subject is definitely notable (it is covered in-depth by many, many independent reliable sources), you just might have to wade through some routine press releases to get there. C F A 💬 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage" is not part of the criteria, the content of said coverage must include in-depth "Independent Content" about the topic. Looking at the sourcing you've referenced, this in Arab News is word-for-word the same as this article published the following day and shares the same information as this article also. Clearly the content is regurgitated PR. This in Gulf News is undoubtedly a PR piece which relies entirely on the mentioned company (and which also fails CORPDEPTH in any case). This in Entrepreneur is yet more PR, same details published in other places around the same time using the exact same information and descriptions, e.g. this. Exact same problems with this in Gulf Business - just regurgitated PR announcing details of the upcoming event. Note also how none of those articles have any attributed journalists. Finally, we get to this in Gulf Today which went around interviewing sponsors and exhibitors - none of this is in-depth "Independent Content" about the event. None of the above references meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my vote. Arab News and Entrepreneur are both independent and reliable and don't do PR/promotion. Whether the article was republished from a news agency doesn't really matter in terms of notability. I am not familiar with Gulf News, though it seems to be a newspaper of record and I see no evidence of it doing promotional stories. The Gulf Today piece does not cover the event itself in-depth, but it can be strung together with many other similar stories (check Google News) to meet GNG. C F A 💬 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most coverage of this conference/trade show is in PR items, talking about the show. I don't see much beyond lists of awards or PRish news items. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/WP:NCORP, none of the sourcing I can locate meets the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 15 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.

Bosphorus Development

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

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:ORGTRIV (routine coverage of market entries, financing, awards, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (interviews, self-published materials), or otherwise unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing validating notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the minimal sources for establishing notablity are present and company is operating in two countries and is behind the biggest buildings in Turkey (Istanbul Tower 205, Istanbul aquarium) etc.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we don't agree about the availability of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS -- can you share your WP:THREE best sources for other editors to evaluate? (Notability is not WP:INHERITED from buildings this company may have been involved with.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep lean towards keep per WP NEXIST (Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article). The company had various names throughout its history, and it was mentioned in Turkish newspapers with no digital copies. I will try to add what I can find. 78.177.93.54 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — 78.177.93.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Mentions of the company are not sufficient, WP:NCORP mandates significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per points above. The article was created by a blocked sock, and other substantial edits were mostly done by IPs. Aintabli (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added not digital good sourcing from Turkish media. It’s quite large construction company (having built Istanbul Tower 205). It seems to meet notability criteria. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirubii Olchoglu: The ConstructionNews URL you added to the article is dead and has never been archived by Wayback Machine, and constructionnews.com does not even seem like a website publishing articles. The book (curiously written by "J. Doe") doesn't seem to exist under this title, and the ISBN belongs to an edition of The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Could you clarify this situation? Janhrach (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirubii Olchoglu Even if the Construction News article was accessible to us, it wouldn't count toward notability as a WP:TRADES publication. Regardless of its size or the projects it worked on, the company needs to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS; notability isn't WP:INHERITED from projects it was involved in. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are kind of/minimum sufficient. The 100 years company is highly likely notable and has sources per NEXIST. It also should be rewritten to avoid any promo. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep !votes have asserted that minimal sources are present, but none have presented the sources they say meet the criteria. I have conducted the following source analysis and I do not see a single source that solidly passes the bar of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS per WP:ORGCRIT. If there are more sources out there (and I didn't find any), "keep" !voters need to present them, not just assert they exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
https://biz.liga.net/all/all/press-release/turetskiy-developer-bosphorus-development-vyhodit-na-ukrainskiy-rynok-nedvijimosti	Press release	Self-published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://mind.ua/openmind/20234520-zakordonnij-dosvid-yak-tureckij-developer-osvoyue-ukrayinskij-rinok	Authored by the chairman of Bosphorus Development		The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://archive.kyivpost.com/business-wire/new-international-development-sector-player-enters-ukraine.html	Authored by the chairman of Bosphorus Development		The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://interfax.com.ua/news/interview/786357.html	As a WP:INTERVIEW, this is a primary source		The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://globaldesignnews.com/renzo-pianos-istanbul-modern-is-inspired-by-the-bosphorus-waters-its-reflections-of-sunlight-and-its-locations-heritage/			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://forbes.ua/ru/company/bosphorus-development-yak-providniy-turetskiy-developer-vikhodit-na-ukrainskiy-rinok-nerukhomosti-20122021-3011			The source only includes a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Bosphorus Development / Босфорус Девелопмент	✘ No
https://emlakkulisi.com.tr/ece-turkiye-aqua-floryanin-kiralama-faaliyetlerini-ustlendi/372671	Apparent WP:TRADES publication		The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/haberleri/aqua-florya-avm			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://expatguideturkey.com/top-10-highest-buildings-in-turkey/	~	Blog	The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230726120751/http://bunews.com.ua/interviews/item/leading-turkish-developer-enters-the-expanding-ukrainian-real-estate-market	~ An interview-based article	~ Possibly excluded as a WP:TRADES publication	~ The source discusses the subject in detail but mostly about a market entry, a subject excluded as SIGCOV under WP:ORGTRIV	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/gayrimenkulde-2016nin-yildizlari-40274467			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.ekoyapidergisi.org/istanbul-tower-205-e-european-property-awards-dan-2-odul	~	~	The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.aksam.com.tr/yasam/istanbul-tower-205e-european-property-awardsdan-2-odul/haber-773563			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.propertyturkey.com/news/istanbuls-second-tallest-building-sold-for-594-million-usd		WP:BLOG	The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://thepage.ua/real-estate/tureckaya-kompaniya-ne-razglashaet-lokaciyu-svoih-zhk-v-centre-kieva-do-nachala-stroitelnyh-rabot			News about new location openings/market entries is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGTRIV.	✘ No
https://emerging-europe.com/business/no-time-to-wait-ukraines-reconstruction-begins-now/	An interview-based article		A trivial mention as part of a broader story	✘ No
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-release/910561.html			A single trivial mention as part of a broader story	✘ No
http://stroyobzor.ua/ru/kiev/news-builders/start-prodazhu-kvartir-v-zhk-biznes-klasu-maxima-residence-na-pechersku	?	?	? Unable to access, blocked as a malicious website.	? Unknown
https://www.ukrhaber.com/blog/bir-turk-sirketi-ukrayna-emlak-piyasasina-giriyor-ilk-projesi-kievde-bir-konut-kompleksi/		Blog	News about new location openings/market entries is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGTRIV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if there is any editor response to the source analysis presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 26 July 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. Also, the "Business Ukraine" article marked as "partial" in the source assess table relies entirely on an interview with the founder with no in-depth Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 29 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premium Prestige

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Sourced with unreliable references. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, and Italy. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure, it existed but 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⁺⁺ 15:43, 16 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.

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. editors can create a redirect from this page title if they want but I don't see a consensus for one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darkworks

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

Not finding evidence the company passes WP:NCORP; the only sources around, even in gaming magazines, are trivial mentions, corporate announcements and interviews. Almost everything about them is in the context of the Alone in the Dark reboot and I Am Alive. Was created by a WP:SPA and of unclear notability since then, suggesting some level of WP:SPAM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:37, 11 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) 03:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears relevant for Video games in France: Gamekult" "De "Alone in the Dark" à "I am Alive" : la malheureuse histoire de DarkWorks", "Cinq studios français allient leur force", "Antoine Villette", thegameeffect: "Behind the Scenes: I Am Alive's Development Disaster", Libération. IgelRM (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare - none of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. changed from a redirect as there is disagreement about a redirect target with no *obvious* target better than the other HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why redirect to Alone in the Dark specifically, e.g. Cold Fear also got an article. Maybe to a section about the I Am Alive development troubles on Video games in France? IgelRM (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect), as although there are plenty of mentions, especially in french, none of these are both reliable and significant coverage. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What references are you referring to specifically, Gamekult is reliable and thegameeffect is in English? IgelRM (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esta compañía, Darckworks, ha sido parte fundamental en la creación, desarrollo y marketing de muchos juegos que formaron parte de la infancia de personas en varios países. Darckworks no puede quedar en el olvido. La información disponible sobre ellos es verídica, ya que gran parte de su trabajo se encuentra en los créditos de todos sus juegos. Aunque sus empleados o gerentes no se pronuncien, no podemos negarles la visibilidad de su trabajo y esfuerzo.

A pesar de su anonimato, merecen el reconocimiento por el excelente trabajo que realizaron y por cómo contribuyeron a la industria de los videojuegos con su creatividad e innovación. Por ejemplo, en el juego "Cold Fear", un survival horror, introdujeron una perspectiva de cámara al hombro con la posibilidad de moverse mientras apuntas y disparas, así como secuencias de acción nunca antes vistas.

Darckworks merece ser recordada. Aunque ya no exista y sus juegos no sean relevantes hoy en día, fueron parte de la historia de los videojuegos y de la infancia de muchos. Kevinchy (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CONSERVAR No es necesario eliminar la poca información sobre Darkworks. En lugar de hacerlo, podemos contribuir a expandirla. Aunque la información disponible sea limitada y solo podamos guiarnos por el trabajo en sus pocos juegos, podemos darles el mérito que merecen. Es posible obtener y ampliar información a partir de los créditos de sus juegos, como "Cold Fear" y "Alone in the Dark".

No podemos simplemente eliminar y hacer desaparecer de la historia su trabajo y aporte al mundo de los videojuegos. Ellos estuvieron y participaron; fueron parte de la evolución de todo este mundillo. Kevinchy (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. However, based on my knowledge of Spanish, you are simply saying it's an important part of gaming history. If this is true, significant coverage will exist. Simply saying WP:ITSIMPORTANT without proof in the form of sources isn't a viable argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~DeleteRedirect~~Delete - I found this Joystick article: [8] but it seems to be mostly about their first game, 1906. The Gamekult article: [9] seems promising but it's paywalled and it alone isn't enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT. --Mika1h (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still trying for WP:ATD, I think the development history of I Am Alive is significantly covered. Maybe redirect to I Am Alive#Darkworks (2005–2009)? IgelRM (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I would be fine with a redirect there. --Mika1h (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is they also developed Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare leaving no obvious target for a redirect. In these situations it's better to delete and let the search function do its job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel silly changing my mind again but I thought about it and Zx makes a good point. There's also Cold Fear which has a sizable development section. I Am Alive doesn't seem significantly more notable than Alone in the Dark or Cold Fear. --Mika1h (talk) 17:01, 22 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Panama Papers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Doe (whistleblower)

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

I 'WP:BOLDly redirected this to Panama Papers, however was reverted by an IP claiming that the redirect was odd given that no consensus had been obtained on either talk page. The subject has no independent notability outside of their role in the release of the panama papers. I'm not sure if this quite fits into WP:BLP1E given that the subject is anonymous and we don't know if they are still on this planet or not, however it certainly fits into the spirit of that policy given that the subject's notability is only understood insofar as they leaked the panama papers. Material about the subject is already covered in Panama Papers so there is no need for a merge and I am seeking community consensus that the redirect be restored. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Companies, and Economics. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Crime, Finance, Law, Politics, and Panama. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Basically what TarnishedPath said, but Subject is not WP:NOTABILITY enough, and the stuff in this article is already stated in both the opening paragraphs and the Newsroom logistics of the Panama Papers article, so I believe this is a fair redirect. Sharrdx (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. We don't know enough about John Doe to fill him out independently of Panama Papers Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but also consider this as a merger as the information is already in the target article. I think this meets not only WP:BLP1E, but also WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. This person seeks to be a low profile individual and remain anonymous so there is little prospect of any biographical information. It makes sense to have all the information in one article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. and others. A case of WP:BLP1E. Sal2100 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with the logic above and a merge/redirect is the best option considering BLP1E HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 16 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayeah Games

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

I am not seeing evidence that this studio passes WP:NCORP. It was created by a WP:SPA so it seems like open and shut WP:SPAM unless someone can bring up evidence it is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:48, 11 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) 01:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant independent coverage ~~except for a single article about its game published before the game was even released. This article was copied across a few websites.~~ The article appears to be based on a press release, so even that coverage is not independent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass WP:NCORP or WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:41, 18 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.

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!} 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CDK Company

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

All sources link to a single viral moment of them performing a Gotye song, rather than any meaningful coverage. Article has had puffery issues in the past. Doesn't really seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY outside of a singular viral moment that got a modicum of coverage. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Dance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:NORG. This is spammy also at articles that lead to the page so a thorough cleanup along with the deletion is much appreciated. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 11 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Nation (Malawi). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nations Publications Limited of Malawi

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or Sng. Tagged by others for this since April. Misses ncorp by far. Zero references other than their own website and I couldn't find any GNG references. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to The Nation (Malawi), since this (AfD subject) is the parent company that owns The Nation, which is probably Malawi's oldest and generally reliable daily and weekly newspaper since 1993 being distributed locally around the country.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 Tumbuka Arch (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tumbuka Arch: Sounds like a good idea. North8000 (talk) 01:32, 11 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!} 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Tumbuka Arch. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:37, 23 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heung Kong Group

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

Unremarkable company UKWikiGuy (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. UKWikiGuy (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I conducted a brief search and located numerous Chinese sources with SIGCOV, including but not limited to Securities Times[10], Xinhua News Agency [11], Wen Wei Po[12], Hong Kong Commercial Daily[13], Sing Tao Daily[14], HK01[15], and China National Radio [16]. Sufficient to fulfill GNG. @Amigao: Please take a look at the newly located sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 07:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Prince of Erebor. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Heung Kong Group (traditional Chinese: 香江集團; simplified Chinese: 香江集团) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:01, 14 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!} 23:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Prince of Erebor. After his research, I do believe the article meets enough to stay.
Ashik Rahik (talk) 14:18, 24 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.

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 23:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EGM Green

AfDs for this article:

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

Third time's a charm, I hope. This company has somehow survived two AfDs despite failing the notability guidelines for companies. The available sources are thinly-veiled press releases, not providing genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 13:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Environment, and New Jersey. – Teratix ₵ 13:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the sources are not very reliable and they (including the article itself) all seem like a big advetisement. Have you found any good sources anywhere that are reliable? Because I don't believe this exactly needs to be deleted, but it might be able to be improved. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a thorough look in all the usual places you'd expect to find sources on this sort of company and found no decent sources. They're all either associated with the company or regurgitating its press releases. – Teratix ₵ 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think a delete is a viable option. Everything about this corporation is a big ad. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Press releases pop up about once every 5-6 years in the card gaming press. Not enough business traction for notability. MNewnham (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLEND

AfDs for this article:

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

The article doesn't show notability, and a WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. It's all routine announcements and trivial coverage, mainly in press releases. bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what I could find, does not pass NCORP at this time. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 18 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.

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. Star Mississippi 00:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jansen AG

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

DOesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some coverage:

100 years anniversary [17][18]
Mergers and acquisitions [19][20][21][22][23]
A visit to the company [24]
Coverage of their electricity production via PV panels [25]
Winners of the European Geothermal Innovation Award [26]
Two profiles on the St. Galler Tagblatt [27][28]

I'm not sure if it's enough for WP:ORG, @Boleyn: what do you think? If the company has been around for 100 years, probably more can be found. Broc (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 50 year profile here as well. Plus above, IMO it is good for NORG. Also an encyclopedia entry on the company's founder and the company (other coverage on the founder). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP and Reliable sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second review of these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Broc's sources are both reliable and provide non-routine coverage of Jansen, for instance the two articles in St. Galler Tagblatt. Geschichte (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have rewritten the article (NPOV) and added reliable secondary sources. As former resident of the Canton of St. Gallen, I know about the good reputation and the importance of Jansen AG for the Rheintal. However, I don't have any connection with this company.--BBCLCD (talk) 15:50, 18 July 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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. For example:

This and this is simple company registration information and company filings. All of the content has been provided by the company, this is not "Independent Content" as per the requirement above. Fails ORGIND.
This is about winning an award but this is not a notable award, it is a niche industry award. Fails ORGTRIV notability criteria. The article itself does not provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.
This in Tagblatt reports on some company restructuring. I am unable to read the entire article at this time, perhaps somebody can report on whether the content provides sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.
This in Rheintaler is based entirely on an announcement/Press Release and fails ORGIND
This in Rhein24 is a report on a party thrown to celebrate 100 years in business but it relies entirely on information provided by the company/execs/attendees, this is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.

I've no doubt this company exists and is a well respected company in their field, but I am unable to locate any sources that meet our criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:01, 23 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.

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. This was well attended and we have well reasoned input arguing for keep/merge/delete and I thank all participants for that. When tying the first two together (as in retention of the information, but an acknowledgement that it may not need to be its own article), there is a slight edge to retention. I'd recommend discussing a merger on the Talk and should that not attain consensus, a renomination could happen. Star Mississippi 01:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bent's Camp Resort

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

Advertisement for non-notable 12-cabin 'resort'. Sourcing is abysmal, and largely used for off-topic padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Wisconsin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I apologize that the article was not developed. It is a 131 year old camp and there is enough information available to write an encyclopedic article like this source about the founder "Charle's Bent" who is not yet in this article 1. They have a history in the Wisconsin lumber industry and deer hunt and harvest. It looks like they were recently featured on the America's Best Restaurants Road Show 2. I also do not think there is anything in this article about their annual music event "Northwoodstock" 3. Probably more to be said about their annual "Radar run" event also 4 Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it is a resort, should the relevant notability guidelines be WP:NORG? If so, it should probably be added to the appropriate delsort too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all clear whet the supposed claim to notability even is. As a former logging camp? A camping ground? A place that runs events? A place in the same county as alleged Bigfoot sightings? Hard to tell... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to companies. The lead tells us it is a resort in Wisconsin. A resort is a business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Thanks, historically it is a place that has had the same name but its use has evolved over a century. Right now it is a campground that hosts major events and also has a lodge. When I went there last year I took photos of the music festival (on commons now) and I also wrote an article on the lake which separates the Wisc and MI (Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)). The photo in the Mamie Lake article is looking away from the lodge at Bent's Camp. I have been editing less these days but I hope to get around to developing the article if it is not deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are these 'major events'? Where is the evidence that anyone not seeking to publicise them considers them 'major'. And how can a 12-cabin resort host 'major events' anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am dancing as fast as I can. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this is the 'major event' you are referring to? [29] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~see revised merge vote below In addition to the sources in the article, Lightburst gives 3 above. The first is really about Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, but discusses Bent and does confirm that he created a fishing camp with log cabins and dining in 1896. However this is not signifcant coverage under any guideline. The mention of the camp is passing. The second link is not reliable in that it presents different information in different locations of the world. In any case it appears to be simply news about a restaurant (if you are an American consumer). The last link is an announcement. That is certainly a primary source. So we have nothing. No notability for a standalone article. Next question is whether a merge or redirect is appropriate. The most likely merge target is to the stub at Mamie Lake (Wisconsin). However I cannot see why that article subject is notable either, albeit that it would be considered under the much laxer WP:GEOLAND. I also considered redirect to Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, as this is what the source above is about. However it is not really Bent's Camp Resort that is discussed there. Rather, it is Bent who would be of sufficient note for a mention. At this point, I don't see any benefit in a redirect that outweighs the disbenefit of Wikipedia promotionally mentioning non notable businesses. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn’t an encyclopedia article; it’s an advertisement with footnotes. Qwirkle (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has been canvassed offline by the nominator. It occurred on WPO in a thread titled "Crap Articles". The entry in that thread by the nominator says, "Bent's Camp Resort (T-H-L) Another masterpiece by Lightburst...". So it looks like this article will be deleted before I can add research about the history of the place; it would be nice to have this sent to draft or user space. If that cannot be done I understand. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any sign of canvassing. Everyone who has commented so far is an AfD regular. But if you are saying there are sources that demonstrate notability, you only need to show they exist, and you have a week to do it. Deletion is a discussion, not a foregone conclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy I understand, thanks for your consideration. I have no desire to edit for the time being. This is not a "woe is me" post, but I have to admit to myself that I had enough of the project for now. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Brandon (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Thanks, You are right, and I am sorry that it reads like a travel guide. I did argue for WP:NEXIST but hunting down sources is not on my schedule right now. If editors think this place should not be on Wikipedia I have to accept that. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a travel brochure, this is an article about a regional institution that has been around since at least the 1890s. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is likely a bad faith nomination. It's a fairly close call, GNG wise — being in operation for over a century, it is quite likely there is undiscovered sourcing out there. Carrite (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is an article from the Vilas County News of May 23, 1923 calling Bent's Camp the 4th oldest resort at that time and printing a photograph of it from the 1890s. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is an obituary for Austin Bent, son of Charles Bent, and for a time proprietor of Bent's Camp. It includes significant detail about the ownership of the business over time. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AND HERE we have a short piece from the Green Bay Press-Gazette on a petition over the expansion of Bent's Camp in 1965. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is a very substantial piece from the Madison Capital Times on the Bent's Camp expansion controversy, which had drawn in a member of the Wisconsin Conservation Commission. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen enough here, plus the footnotes showing in the piece, to get this one over the GNG bar. This is not commercial propaganda, this is a piece about living Americana, a historical site heading towards 150 years in operation. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN on the middle-1960s development controversy, this time noting that the case had gone all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AND THIS PIECE, entitled "North Needs Financing to Save Its Old Resorts," puts the Bent's Camp development controversy into historical context, as indicative of problems being suffered by other fishing resorts of the region. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You may have demonstrated that a worthwhile article might be written about this, but what was actually written belongs on one of those display stands of shiny cardstock brochures about local tourist traps. Whether better sourcing makes this worth an article, or space in another article, is still an open question. Qwirkle (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Qwirkle we meet again - twice in one night. Can we can consider WP:NEXIST as demonstrated by the Carrite sources? It is late here but I can try to find time to add them to the article tomorrow. Or another editor may add them. Thanks for considering. Lightburst (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sirfurboy, Brandon, Qwirkle, TarnishedPath to consider the above. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my comment as this is all a bit too spicy for my tastes. Brandon (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite on review of the analysis that @Sirfurboy has compiled below I don't see any reason to change my delete !vote, unless something changes. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you to Carrite who found sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Like others here, I came from the ANI. Bruxton (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - source assessment Carrite has spent considerable effort finding mention of this business in old newspapers using Newspapers.com. Many thanks for spending the time and effort to do that. On first glance I thought at least one of these was good: a review that talks about the camp. However, the depth of the review must be considered against the appropriate guidelines, and on that score, it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The WP:NORG guideilines describe what is required for significant coverage in CORPDEPTH which says:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

I have thus produced the following source assessment table for these new sources. Note that this is my own assessment only.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Eagle River Review [30]	I have not checked. Articles such as this often are not independent, but considering its age, and the coverage of 4 such camps, I have assumed it is ok		There is a single paragraph on the page subject (although the OCR splits it to 2), plus a photo. It has some salient information (not the oldest resrort, and the trail was cut through hardwood with an axe, built as a rendevous for lumberjacks). Looking at the CORPDEPTH guideline quoted above, it is clear that we don't have information here that can be used to write more than a brief or incomplete stub.	Worth mentioning here that newspaper reporting is a primary source, but this is not reporting so clearly secondary.
Wasua Daily Herald [31]			Passing mention in an obituary.	This one, however, is reporting Bent's death. A primary source for Bent, and the mention of the camp occasioned by the primary reporting.
Green Bay Press Gazette [32]		TBH I am just assuming the reliablity for all of these. They probably are, but I haven't checked.	This is about opposition to development by the owner of the camp. Nothing about the camp per CORPDEPTH.	Reporting the protest. We would be writing a secondary source if we used articles such as this to build an article. It would be good history, but a poor encyclopaedic article.
The Capital Times 1 [33] The Capital Times 2 [34] The Capital Times 3 [35] Multiple articles from a single source count together.			1 Mentions one of the enterpreneurs in the clash as the owner of the business. That is all. 2 all we are told is that business had sagged. 3 The last and this call it historic, but that is all it says. What historic means here is, presumably, it has been there a long time, as nothing actually historic is told to us.	1 is reporting a clash between businesses and is primary, 2 reports a falling out which is primary news reporting, 3 is reporting a need for financing, which is primary for that, but as the financing is to save "old resorts", the question of whether there is a mix of secondary reporting there of the camp itself is moot as there isn't significant reporting of it.

Note that under NORG we need multiple sources, and each source must individually meet WP:SIRS. I don't think any of these do. If someone were inclined to accept the first, you would still need multiple such sources. So we are not there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost completely sourced by primary sources, and, as Sirfurboy has pointed out above, there aren't enough reliable secondary sources to meet notability requirements. Articles are only as good as their sources allow, and what there isn't reliable. Easy delete.--Panian513 20:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the material User:Carrite brought in hasn't changed my mind that this current article doesn't belong in mainspace, but has, I think made the case that the subject is a little more important than this article would show. Maybe not as a standalone, but as an expanded part of LoL or the Cisco lakes and so forth. Maybe draftify it for now? Qwirkle (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wegner, Robert (2008). Classic Deer Camps. Iola, Wisconsin: Krause Publications. pp. 101–115. ISBN 978-0-89689-655-0. Retrieved 2024-07-14 – via Internet Archive.
  Bent's Camp Resort is covered on pages 101–115 of the book. The book notes: "Bent’s Camp remains a classic example of how man converted the antique, quaint lumber camps of the old lumbering era into romantic deer camps and recreational resorts of the early twentieth century; how these old time lumber camps became great enclaves of manliness and refined sportsmanship with a pronounced wildlife conservation ethic. Yet women also emerged into this rustic atmosphere as well, as we see in those two great deer hunting photos of Lizzy Bent with her classic Winchester rifle in hand and Henry and Ruth Voss posing with their trophy whitetail at Manitowish Waters—two photos shown in the Wisconsin Public Television Documentary "A State of Escape." Bent's Camp still exists today in all its magnificent splendor; in the interior of the camp with its beautiful, sapling wainscoating deer hunters still converse, tell stories, and in the North Woods around the camp reconnect with the ancient rhythms of nature."
2. Hintz, Martin; Percy, Pam (2014). Williams, Tracee (ed.). Food Lovers' Guide to Wisconsin: The Best Restaurants, Markets & Local Culinary Offerings. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-7627-9214-6. Retrieved 2024-07-14 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Dating from 1906, Bent's has the appropriate look of a bygone era, with its rustic decor including birch bark, held in place by cedar-bark strips, lining the ceiling and walls. Photos from the early days of Bent's Camp Jare everywhere, including on the menu. Almost everything has a homemade touch, from the vegetables grown on-site to the handmade pizza. Steaks and roast duck are specialties, with nightly specials. Pork chops, ribs, and yellowfin tuna earn raves from ravenous visitors, in from a day of fishing. Speaking of fins, Bent's Friday fish fry attracts a big crowd. Breakfast is served Saturday and Sunday with a Bloody Mary bar available starting at the wee hour of 8 a.m. Early every August, Bent's hosts its Northwoodstock festival, with live music all day and lots of food and beer. This self-proclaimed "hippie hoe down" is good for laughs, plenty of hamburgers, and several rounds of brew."
3. Westervelt, Amy (2012). Michigan's Upper Peninsula: A Great Destination. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. pp. 175, 178. ISBN 978-1-58157-138-7. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  The book notes: "Just over the Wisconsin border, in Land O’Lakes, Bent’s Camp (715-547-3487; www.bents-camp .com; $$$, closed Tuesdays in winter) offers a similar sort of experience. A former logging camp turned into a popular fishing resort, Bent’s also features an outstanding restaurant, famous for its Friday fish fry, Saturday prime rib, juicy roast duck, and homemade pizzas. Located in the main lodge of the resort, Bent’s Camp restaurant features wood tables in a large wooden, open-beam interior decorated with Native American trinkets and local hunting trophies. The restaurant has its own dock for those boating in for a meal. The Friday fish fry is renowned throughout the region, so plan on getting there early or waiting awhile if you want to find out what the big fuss is about—it's worth it."
4. Gauper, Beth (2005-02-13). "Golden Oldies - In the North Woods, Classic Lodges Are Remnants of a Vanished Era". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  The article provides 233 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Not far away, near the Michigan border west of Land O' Lakes, Bent's Camp began life in 1896 as a camp for sportsmen, brought over from the railroad landing in a wooden scow called the Tar Baby. A log restaurant was built in 1906, with interior walls covered by thick squares of birch bark held in place by cedar strips. Today, it's one of the north woods' most treasured spots. In the bar, old photos illustrate the resort's early history and a fire crackles in the stone fireplace; diners sit in a room lined with paned windows overlooking Mamie Lake or in the wood-paneled big room, under the gaze of a giant stag head. It's as far off the beaten path as it can be, but the specials when I was there were pure uptown -- Chilean sea bass with a langoustine cream sauce, duck confit and a delectable phyllo-wrapped lamb with gorgonzola, rosemary and garlic. ... Bent's Camp near Land O' Lakes, Wis.: This is a great destination even for a beer, ..."
5. Bawden, Timothy (2001). Reinventing the Frontier: Tourism, Nature, and Environmental Change in Northern Wisconsin, 1880–1930 (PhD thesis). University of Wisconsin–Madison. p. 115. ProQuest 231652918. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  The PhD thesis notes: "Charles Bent, a logger and lumberman from Oconto County, came to Vilas County in 1893 to homestead 67 acres of densely forested land on the shore of Lake Mamie, located 12 miles west of State Line (Land O' Lakes). The timber was so thick that a 40 acre tract produced a million feet of pine. Bent cleared some of the land in that first year and used the logs to build a main lodge and a few other buildings for his resort, naming it Bent's Camp. He eventually built his property into an impressive resort that included a main lodge, 12 cottages, a guide's quarters, stables, and ice and boat houses. The resort could accommodate 75 guests by 1915, which was almost twice the average at the time.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bent's Camp Resort to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 5 of this list look interesting. Still trying to get the first book. The first is unavailable to borrow just now - do you still have it out? I need to read the last still. The middle three are not going to pass CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) - Cunard adds five sources above, and again thanks for the efforts on this. One of these, I suspect is a very good source, but I cannot review it, as below. I would be happy to admit that the hobbyist book, Classic Deer Camps is likely to provide significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source. The others I discount as I do not believe they meet CORPDEPTH. To show the notability of a business there needs to be more than directory style information, or basic history. This then leaves us short of the multiple WP:SIRS sources we need. However, on Wegner's book alone, I think we, per WP:FAILORG, have sufficient information that there should be mention of the camp on Wikipedia. I thus have revised my above delete !vote to a merge. The stub at Mamie Lake would be the best merge target, and a merge there would improve that page, retain the information about the camp on Wikipedia, and provide an appropriate place to add other such information. My assessment of the sources provided by Cunard is below.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Classic Deer Camps [36]	No indication that Wegner has any connection with the camp that would suggest this is not independent.	The publisher is Krause Publications (KP), which allows self publishing. [37], but I think that is perhaps recent. It was formerly known for hobby magazines and books. At time of publication (2008), KP were owned by F+W, publishers of special interest works. This author published a number of deer hunting books through KP. This would be a hobby book, but it is not clear to what extent it had any editorial review. It is, however, well put together. I don't see a reason to deny its reliability.	There is clearly a whole chapter on the camp. I think this is very likely to constitute signiifcant coverage, but the book is hard to find. Open Library has it but with limited preiview. None of my library services have it, and the specialist hobby nature of the work will make it hard to track down. I tehrefore cannot verify that it has significant coverage - but, again, it is a likely pass.
Food Lovers' Guide to Wisconsin: The Best Restaurants, Markets & Local Culinary Offerings [38]	An entry in a food lover's guide may not be independent as sometimes the entries are placed for payment. I have not investigated whether this is the case here as it fails on significance.	It is a guide about the food in the state. It appears to be a reliable one.	One long paragraph about the food at the bar and lodge restaurant in a local food lover's guide. Other than the date (of the restaurant), there is nothing here to write an article from. Fails CORPDEPTH.
Michigan's Upper Peninsula: A Great Destination [39]	A destination guide will list all the torist businesses at the destination. Often the content is placed, or write ups may be provided by the businesses		One long paragraph, mostly about the food. Apparently the fish fry is well reputed.	The extent to which this is a secondary source is debatable. The information is written ain the style of a secondary source. It is information about the businesses, but it is occasioned by the destination guide which is a primary source inasmuch as it describes the tourist attractions at a destination for the purposes of being a guide to the location as it is.
Golden Oldies - In the North Woods, Classic Lodges Are Remnants of a Vanished Era [40]	It is an article in local press. These may not be independent but I have not investigated this further as I don't believe this meets ORGCRIT	But local press.	4 paragraphs, a touch more than the above food guide, although the flavour of this is similar. It speaks of it as atreasured spot. Plenty of people would accept this as significant if we were not looking under CORPDEPTH, but under CORPDEPTH it still does not pass muster.
Reinventing the Frontier: Tourism, Nature, and Environmental Change in Northern Wisconsin, 1880–1930 [41]			All we have is the 132 words quoted and mention of some boats. There is sufficient information here to tell us when teh camp was created and its size, but nothing that asserts notability beyond its creation, nor the kind of in depth information envisaged by CORPDEPTH. Again, we stil have nothing beyond the information sufficient for a very brief stub, as before. We can say Bent built it, when he built it and how big it was, but we don't have the level of attention required to write more.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, I believe the "Classic Deer Camps" reference contains so many pages because most of those are photographs. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sirfurboy, I've found if you click on the arrows beside the page number, you can still see the pages of the book "Classic Deer Camps" (except maybe the first time you click but click again and they're available). From reading the available pages, arguably there isn't much by way of direct in-depth information but in my opinion there is sufficient information provided in an indirect manner. For example, much of the content is about a family named "Clow" and how they used Bent's camp as a base, sprinkled among this text is enough information to provide descriptions of various parts of the camp. Similarly on page 108 it mentions other "characters" that "hung out" at the camp and on page 109 it mentions the early years of the 20th century when the camp became a public resort charging $8 a week for board but that come deer-hunting season, the Clow deer-hunting clan took over. And so on. I think your analysis is correct, the book meets the criteria. That said, we need another source before the topic can be said to be notable. Have to also mention that on page 215 of this book, it lists other sources of information for Bent's Camp, which you can see in Google Books view of "Classic Deer Camps" HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 15 July 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 only able to identify one single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, being the first book in Cunard's list. None of the others meet GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERX. This isn't a !vote count. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What else am I supposed to say besides "I think Cunard's sources show that it is notable"? Of course it isn't a vote count but is there a need to rehash things when someone else has already said what I think? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a discussion. Which of Cunard's sources show it is notable and is there anything you can add which might rebut the analysis of Sirfurboy which points out why 4 of those sources don't meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 09:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the sources brought forward during this AfD would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ORGCRIT analysis by Sirfurboy convinces me this does not meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says: "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". significant coverage links to Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline which says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The sources linked by Carrite (talk · contribs) and me address the subject "directly and in detail".
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
The sources I linked all contain "deep coverage" through providing an overview and description of the resort. The current version of the Wikipedia article is not a "very brief, incomplete stub", which disproves the assertion that "we stil have nothing beyond the information sufficient for a very brief stub".
Coverage of the restaurant that is a core part of the resort is coverage of the resort. It is illogical to exclude discussion of the resort's restaurant from contributing to significant coverage about the resort. The Saint Paul, Minnesota-based St. Paul Pioneer Press is not "local press" of a resort in Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin. The sources are all independent of the subject and published by reputable publishers. There is no evidence that the coverage in The Countryman Press and Globe Pequot Press books were "placed for payment" or that the company wrote the content.
Here are additional sources I found:
1. Rose, Hailey (2022-06-09). "A Historic Wisconsin Destination: Bent's Camp". Discover Wisconsin. Archived from the original on 2024-07-20. Retrieved 2024-07-20.
  The review notes: "Bent’s Camp was established in 1896 by Charles Bent, an avid outdoor enthusiast of sport fishing and hunting. He created the resort to preserve the Northwoods in all its glory for all to love and enjoy as much as he did. Since its establishment, it has been seen as a fantastic fishing attraction and still is today."
2. Hass, Kortnee (2021-07-14). "A Northwoods Retreat: Bent's Camp". Discover Wisconsin. Archived from the original on 2024-07-20. Retrieved 2024-07-20.
  The review notes: "In 1896, Bent's was established as a place for sport fishing and hunting and still to this day is discovered by new women and men everyday. Charles Bent was known for his deep love of the Northwoods and all he did to try to help protect and improve it for the others to come! The lodge was then built in 1906 and as we mentioned before, started off being used for various things but was primarily used as a place to serve the guests food."
3. Wegner, Robert (November 2003). "Bent's Camp". Wisconsin Outdoor Journal. Vol. 17, no. 8. pp. 24–29.
  The source is listed here in Wegner's book.
4. Davis, Mark Henry (1997). An Empire in Waiting: Northern Wisconsin's Lake Country, 1880–1940 (PhD thesis). University of Wisconsin–Madison. p. 262. ProQuest 304416611.
  The PhD thesis notes:
  Bent's Resort, a fishing camp that had remained unchanged since it opened in the 1880's, touted its crudity. "With its old weathered log cabins, half underground, and its interesting relics of bygone days, it does a great deal to preserve the primitiveness of the place."⁵⁶
  56 WisLOL, May 1929, 7.
  Wisconsin Land O' Lakes Magazine. 1925–1929.
Cunard (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I'm convinced by Sirfurboy's and HK's analyses above. No number of passing mentions, like the couple-sentence blurbs cited above, amounts to the second SIRS source needed to meet NORG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sirfurboy's arguments are convincing. Others less so. ——Serial Number 54129 21:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the source analysis tables listed above. Generally routine coverage and passing mentions. Frank Anchor 13:12, 23 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.

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. Strong arguments presented by both sides, but after three weeks, no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group (Ghana)

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

This company does not meet any notability requirement. In the article's current form, all sources are primary and there is nothing out there to indicate notability per before search Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are purely promotional. Unlikely notability could ever be established. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is a member of the GSE Composite Index, so WP:LISTED probably applies here. A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company. Brandon (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search result you presented all come from a single source which is News Ghana and seems to be unreliable news website. At the bottom of all their articles they ask people to send in their news stories to a Gmail address. Which reliable media organisation uses such an email server? Besides, some of the articles about the subject published by the source (News Ghana) you presented are also attributed to GNA (Ghana News Agency) indicating that the articles are syndicated sponsored posts. Over all, the source you presented is not reliable and lacking in editorial oversight as it seems incapable to source its own news stories. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to forgive me as I am not an expert on media in Ghana. A similar search on the Daily Graphic (Ghana) returns similar results. Same with Business and Financial Times. Are there specific Ghanaian news sources you'd consider reliable? Brandon (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the sources are promotional, that does not mean it is notable. You say you did a before search, but somehow when I search it up I am able to find numerous different sources establishing notability. — 48 JCL 23:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please present the sources that establish notability. Before search only brings sponsored or paid for articles and those can't be used to prove notability. Please see my response to the claim of " A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company" above. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may look not sourced well but it meets Listed rule and I see it does have some sufficient reliable sources. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The people suggesting keep need to explain how it meets the expectations for corporations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the vast majority of the third-party content about this company is ineligible to be considered for notability under WP:ORGTRIV, and while WP:LISTED is not a presumption of notability but rather an indication that sources likely exist, I did find a handful of independent, reliable examples of WP:SIGCOV (Modern Ghana here, here, here plus GhanaWeb) that clear the bar of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 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. ~~Looking at the sources provided by Dclemens above, this is an article reporting on residents complaints about a totally different company so I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article.~~ This is about the rebranding and name change, totally relies on the company announcements and "launch", no in-depth "Independent Content". This, the third article from Modern Ghana is about the opening of new offices and what was said by the CEO at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, ending with a two sentence description about the company, not in-depth "Independent Content", fails NCORP. Finally, the GhanaWeb article has nothing to do with this company, ~~again begging the question was this article actually read~~. I'm unable to locate any analyst reports containing sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet our criteria. Finally, more than one editor has used reasoning that WP:LISTED applies therefore it meets our notability criteria - except LISTED clearly says a listing doesn't mean the company is automatically notable - we still require sourcing that meets our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your comments above, "I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article" and "again begging the question was this article actually read" per WP:AGF. I did indeed read the articles. They are not about a totally different company. The headline in Modern Ghana says: "Ayimensah-Kweiman residents bare teeth at Ken Ofori-Atta's Enterprise Group for snatching land to construct commercial cemetery, mortuary." Ofori-Atta was a director of the Enterprise Group until 2015, according to page 7 of the annual report on the website of the same Enterprise Group that is the subject of this AfD, thus, unless you believe ModernGhana to be an entirely unreliable source, the article is talking about the correct company. The GhanaWeb article also discusses allegations about the influence of the same Enterprise Group (see reference to Ofori-Atta starting in the sixth paragraph). I don't !vote in an AfD unless I have reviewed the sources and done a WP:BEFORE search, and it is not WP:CIVIL for an editor to accuse another of lying about reading the sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I've withdrawn the comments which say the articles refer to a different company and any reference or implication that you may not have read the articles. I also accept that my comments were personal and entirely unnecessary and for that I apologise. In the interests of completeness, this does not mean that because those articles mention the company that they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The first article relating to the residents' protest is a mention in passing only which provides no information about the company. I would be interested to hear why you believe this meets the criteria, specifically, what content within that article is in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. Similarly with the GhanaWeb article, it mentions the company in passing, no other information, so I'm interested to understand what specific content makes you say it goes towards notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. Quick reply on the substance: Modern Ghana #1 has SIGCOV of the company for criticism of its development plans. (It may not look like it references the company but the story doesn't capitalize its name to make it as easily identifiable. There are several references to it and the protests are specifically against the company.) Modern Ghana #2 is an article about the company's rebranding, and rebranding is not excluded as "routine coverage" under WP:ORGTRIV. Unless it's a reprint of a press release or an interview, I'm not in the business of identifying how much independent reporting did or didn't go into it. It doesn't solely quote from the company's officials, though. Modern Ghana #3 might initially appear to be disqualified under ORGTRIV, but that only excludes routine coverage of "openings and closings of local branches, franchises and shops," and this is coverage of its corporate headquarters. The GhanaWeb piece is the weakest but it provides coverage of the role of Enterprise Group executives in influencing Ghanaian finance policy. YMMV, and I don't think your assessment is unreasonable, but I also think mine is reasonable based on the applicable criteria as discussed above. In borderline cases like this one I generally let the balance tip toward interpreting the sources to qualify rather than be excluded. (P.S. I'll be offline most of the rest of the week, at least away from my laptop, so won't be able to chime in further.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the arguments given by User:HighKing which have convinced me that this does not pass WP:GNG/WP:NCORP TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 31 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 01:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plexus Consulting Group

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP and lacks any references at all in the current state. Previously survived PROD in 2016, so bringing to AfD. Brandon (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington, D.C.. Brandon (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NCORP. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ADifferentMan. Non-notable company with no significant coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by a WP:SPA and later edited by another account in the company name. The company's website seems to have gone around the end of 2015; I am not seeing anything to indicate whether this was due to a merger or whatever. More generally, although the DEPROD challenge in 2016 suggested potential sources, nothing in the article text suggests notable achievements and my searches are not finding the WP:RS sources needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:53, 15 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.

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!} 01:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COPC Inc.

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

Company doesn't appear to meet the bar for notability under WP:NCORP, which is obscured by a large amount of low quality references. Brandon (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. Brandon (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 03:22, 10 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.

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!} 01:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kameraflage

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

Never a substantial business. There was minimal coverage of their (never-realized) launch promises (Engadget), but nothing substantial post-launch. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A patent and the Endgadget article are all there seems to be for coverage. Nohting found in media, what's used in the article for sourcing doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 10 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.

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!} 23:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIRACL (security firm)

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. The IBTimes article about them discontinuing a product is seemingly the only reliable, secondary source in the article right now. A cursory search hasn't turned up more coverage. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and United Kingdom. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 9 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!} 23:21, 15 July 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, sources in the article are PR announcements and run-of-the-mill coverage that relies entirely on material provided by the company or their execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:05, 16 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Volta River Authority#Subsidiary companies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volta Hotels Limited

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference link provided doesn’t exist anymore. As an ATD, can be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volta_River_Authority Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Volta River Authority#Subsidiary companies (with the history preserved under the redirect), where this subsidiary company is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage about the book in my searches for sources.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Volta River Authority#Subsidiary companies : Subject does not have the requisite sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. The only source is primary, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:15, 15 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.

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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vuelamex

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the reference links work. The airlines never commenced operations. This has been tagged for notability since 2011. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Airline that never took off. Literally or figuratively. gidonb (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of lack of notability. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 23:09, 12 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too Lost (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Still unclear if there's enough independent coverage for WP:NCORP.

Previous AfD was speedied per the author's request. Also speedied for copyvio Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost, also deleted under G12 KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the NCORP sourcing criteria as most of the sources are routine announcements, trade publications or brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, two previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources fail WP:NCORP as WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:TRADES publications or WP:ORGTRIV mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 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. Just to add, the primary difference in sourcing between this version and the previously deleted version is the addition of several PR announcements, none of which can be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:03, 16 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.

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!} 23:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Compass

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Specifically lacking reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Canada. Brandon (talk) 22:03, 7 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!} 21:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:00, 16 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syhunt

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

Article lacks any reliable sources. Fails every criteria of WP:ORGCRIT. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Brazil. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally nothing about them online except for their own websites. Very obvious WP:NORG fail - might even qualify for A7. Was most likely a WP:UPE creation, surprised it survived this long. C F A 💬 23:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Their own website, then linkedin, then directory listings... No coverage in Gnews or anywhere else for this company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 9 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.

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

The result was keep‎. It seems that the majority of participants see these two companies as separate entities and there is opposition to a Merge of the two similarly named companies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Trains (open access operator)

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

Page already exists here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Virgin Trains is about a train operator that ceased in 2019, this is about a separate prospective operator with a different ownership structure. Virgin Trains was a franchised operator, if it comes to fruition, this will be an open access operator.In the same way that we have Flybe (1979-2020) and Flybe (2022–2023), same brand, but otherwise completely different. 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenfruy (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗
00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge as it does not appear the future incarnation is yet notable. Can be covered within the extant article until such time as notability changes and it can be spun out. Star Mississippi 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virgin Trains per Star. If they win the bid we can consider a split then Jumpytoo Talk 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grenfruy, or merge to a new overview article about the various uses of the Virgin brand in relation to UK railways. I Oppose merging to an existing article because none of those listed Virgin Trains (disambiguation) are suitable merge targets (based on those articles and the dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the same reasons as stated by Grenfuy as it is a different corporation. Rillington (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the new government's stated policy to renationalise the railways, is this proposal even valid any more? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless and until we know a lot more detail about the new plans it's impossible to say whether open access operators will be a feature of a nationalised railway (there are hundreds (at least) of possible structures it could take), but that's only tangentially relevant crystal ball-gazing. This is notable as a proposal (probably individually, definitely as part of a broader article) whether they end up ever running trains or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 11 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!} 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as above, and also worth noting that the new corporation's proposal has plenty of coverage already. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:02, 14 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.

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!} 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granita (restaurant)

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

WP:MILL defunct restaurant whose claim for inclusion is a WP:1E situation: the restaurant was known only for being the site of the Blair–Brown deal, an event in British political history which has nothing to do with the restaurant as such. Nothing else about the restaurant is in any way remarkable or notable. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and United Kingdom. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Simply because a notable meeting took place at this restaurant does not make it notable in and of itself.TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 7 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BigID

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

Fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Sources are _almost entirely_ related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and New York. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all relevant notability guidelines of WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC and WP:NCORP in its current status. All sources are PR distributed material with a clear evidence in the photo caption. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:11, 6 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.

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!} 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

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

Article seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Israel. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Sources in the article mentioned the subject in passing, some are PR materials except one that give significant coverage and seems reliable. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Confused by Delete argument that states a source provides significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, much of the article reeks of WP:PROMO as well. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:28, 13 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.

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 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paigham TV

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

Unsourced since its creation in 2012. No reliable sources found online that contribute towards WP:GNG or WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Islam, and Pakistan. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per WP:ATD. I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access. Therefore, a redirect is the best option. 2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or even to have a good redirect target Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's nothing sig/in-depth as required by WP:GNG. Fails WP:BROADCAST. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:33, 12 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.

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

The result was keep‎. The nomination did not present a valid rationale for deletion, and the Delete !voters had ample time to review and dispute the sources presented here, leaving us with a rough consensus to keep. I also went ahead and renamed the page to Dot's Pretzels as requested here, but that is an editorial choice outside the scope of this AfD, so any editor is welcome to revert or reverse this. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dot's Homestyle Pretzels

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

The article is of a promotional nature. Although the article has Forbes contributor source which is not reliable and prohibited RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and North Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find sources in trade magazines or PR items, similar to what's already used in the article. Lack of sourcing to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Hershey Company brands#Non-chocolate brands Pretty good 'small business makes good' story, but not really much to find outside the obvious circle of small business promo blogs pre-Hershey. Nate • (chatter) 20:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Vincent, Brittany (2023-12-28). "Your New Favorite Salty Snack: All Dot's Pretzels Flavors—Ranked Best to Worst". Parade. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  This is a 1,342-word article about the company and its pretzel flavors. The article notes: "Dot's Pretzels was founded by Dorothy "Dot" Henke. Dot originally created the recipe for the popular pretzels in her home kitchen in North Dakota as a homemade snack for friends and family. The seasoned pretzel twists she came up with while experimenting one holiday season were so well received that she decided to turn her culinary creation into a business—and Dot's Pretzels was born. ... Why Are Dot's Pretzels So Expensive? Dot's Pretzels tend to be pricier than some other pretzel brands. There are a few reasons for this. First and foremost, a lot more goes into baking these braided pretzel twists than just mixing them together, adding some salt flakes, and calling it a day."
2. Benham, Herb (2022-06-19). "In a twist over delicious pretzels". The Bakersfield Californian. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  The article notes: "Why can't I stop eating these pretzels? What's in them? Dot's Homestyle Pretzels are like the crack cocaine of salty snacks. ... Dot's were different. They had something, a flavor I couldn't stay away from. Some flicker of palate recognition. Like a good red wine, the pretzels had a taste delivered late, but consistently, that was addicting, which I couldn't identify and, since I couldn't, I had to have another handful to see if I could."
3. Vondracek, Christopher (2019-12-20). "Dot's Homestyle Pretzels goes nationwide, adding more flavors — and a candy bar". Billings Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  The article notes: "For the last decade, Henke has been herself - or, at least her products have carried her name. Matriculated from a treat baked and bagged in the kitchen adjacent the Velva grocery store, Dot's Homestyle is now sold in True Value stores in every state in the nation. According to Nielsen data, Dot's ranked sixth on the list of highest-selling pretzels in 2019 (up there with pantry standards, like Rold Gold and Snyder's of Hanover)."
4. Hutton, Rachel (2018-11-24). "How Dot's Pretzels became the Midwest's new food phenom. From two-sheet-pan operation to the Target shelves: A retiree's snacktastic success story outlasts the oil boom". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  The article notes: "Dot's Homestyle Pretzels look like the typical russet-hued twists passed around while watching a game. Their seasoning is barely visible, but unmistakable: beginning with a whiff of synthetic butter, blooming into a garlicky umami with a slight tang, and finishing with a mild afterburn. Whatever it is, it has people hooked. Dorothy "Dot" Henke, who lives near Velva, N.D., a small town outside Minot, launched her seasoned pretzel business as a two-sheet-pan, home kitchen operation. Her timing couldn't have been better."
5. Schmidt, Helmut (2019-10-23). "'Dot' of Dot's Homestyle Pretzels shares success story". Billings Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  The article notes: "They went to a lot of Pride of Dakota shows and other trade shows, then sought out a commercial kitchen. They later bought a run-down building in Velva and refurbished it, opening there in November 2012. ... Dot's buys its pretzel twists from a larger firm, and the firm's employees coat them in oil and a blend of seasons, bake, cool and repackage them."
6. Diesfeld, Elise (2020-06-24). "Best Bites: Dot's Homestyle Pretzels". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  The review notes: "But if the snack mix includes Dot’s Homestyle Pretzels, there is a 100% chance I’m reaching for them first. The twisted pretzel rods are coated with a light secret seasoning that is just enough to leave a little bit of residue on your fingers."
7. Jackson, Sharyn (2019-05-06). "Wildly popular Dot's Homestyle Pretzels now come in candy bar form". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  The article notes: "Diehard fans of Dot’s Homestyle Pretzels would likely agree that the beloved pretzel born in North Dakota doesn’t need much improvement. But Dorothy “Dot” Henke, the snack’s creator, has big ideas for her brand found in gas stations and hardware stores across the Midwest. Enter the Mr. Dot Bar. Three flavors (milk chocolate with toffee, dark chocolate with toffee, and “white candy bar”) incorporate Henke’s signature garlic and onion-seasoned buttermilk pretzels."
8. Schramm, Jill (2012-11-12). "Velva, ND, businesswoman has passion for pretzels". Grand Forks Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  The article notes: "A Pride of Dakota product, Dot's Homestyle Pretzels was an idea that actually formulated in Arizona, where Henke and her husband, Randy, spend the winters. Relatives of Randy's, who now are Henke's business partners in Arizona, were the first to suggest that Henke go beyond making the pretzels just for her own family."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dot's Homestyle Pretzels to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RodrigoIPacce (talk · contribs), Oaktree b (talk · contribs), and MrSchimpf (talk · contribs), I've posted a list of sources I found about Dot's Homestyle Pretzels. Would you review the sources? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible speedy keep due to invalid rationale given by the nominator. Per WP:ARTN Article content does not determine notability so saying that the article is promotional is not a valid reason for deletion especially when the nominator didn't spend any time doing proper WP:BEFORE or point out what is promotional? Anyways, I found some additional in-depth coverage about this topic ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46]) even though Cunard has already done a good job. I'd say keep and rename the article to Dot's Pretzels as the current title of the article is not common. 144.86.182.35 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources and other similar I found. The existence of sub par sourcing doesn't mean GNG level doesn't exist. I also second IP 144 re: the rename as it's more common in the sourcing I found. Star Mississippi 00:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One question to consider before identifying the appropriate guidelines - since this article is about a "brand", what guidelines apply? A brand is neither a company nor a "product" per se, therefore strictly speaking WP:NCORP doesn't apply. Equally though, if it is a "brand", we therefore require sources that talk to the topic - that is, the brand. Sources that talk only about individual products under the brand are discussions about a product. Cunard has identified several sources that talk about the brand - that is the "range" of individual products - and that sourcing meets WP:GNG criteria. For example, this in Parade provide a good overview of the brand, as does this in the Star Tribune. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:49, 10 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.

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volpi Foods

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

Lack of links to confirm the relevance of the article. Advertising text RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would say the sources cited (the food magazine, the local news station) are sufficient for notability, even if coverage is not especially in-depth. Enough to verify the company's history and current operations anyway. The article is rather promotional and needs to be cleaned up to a more neutral POV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Luongo, C. Paul (1980). America's Best! 100. New York: Sterling Publishing. pp. 186–188. ISBN 0-8069-0178-0. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Prosciutto means "ham" in Italian, and only the best ham legs are used to make this delicacy. Air curing, careful aging, hand rubbing, and even a properly aged building makes John Volpi & Company's "Splendor Brand" America's best prosciutto."
  The book notes: "John Volpi came to St. Louis from Milan in 1898. He was a sausage-maker by trade, and word spread of the quality of the work he did for local households. Soon, he was shipping sausage to Chicago and New York. He founded the Volpi Company in 1905 and his brother-in-law, Gino Pasetti, became his partner. Armando Pasetti immigrated to America in 1938 and inherited the company in 1957 after the elder Pasetti and Volpi died within a vear of each other. There are now fifteen people working at the plant, which produces 30,000 to 40,000 prosciuttos a year."
2. Saveur (2008) [2001]. Saveur Cooks Authentic Italian. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8118-6574-6. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In the close-knit, lively St. Louis neighborhood known as the Hill," writes St. Louis native Bill Sertl, "food is the tie that binds and satisfies. A one-square-mile Italian stronghold just west of Downtown and the Gateway Arch, the Hill-where about 75 percent of the residents are still of Italian ancestry (the first Italians arrived here in the 1880s)—is home to shops like Volpi Italian Foods, producer of some of the best salami and prosciutto in America. Above the meat cases are vintage photographs, one of a delivery truck in the '40s and another of company founder John Volpi. Pudgy sausages hang from the rafters, and the countertops are crammed with impulse buys—Italian licorice, chocolate-covered coffee beans, packages of dried porcini. Overseeing the whole operation is Armando Pasetti, an outgoing Lombard who is John Volpi's nephew and who took over the company after his uncle's death in 1957."
3. Schiavo, Giovanni Ermenegildo (1975). The Italians in Missouri. New York: Arno Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-405-06421-0. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Volpi Packing Company was founded by Mr. John Volpi, who has been assisted for many years past by Mr. Gino Pasetti. It manufactures salami after the Italian style such as Genoa mortadella, capicollo, soppresse, prosciutti, coppa, etc., known all over the country as "Splendor Brand." As a matter of fact, the Volpi products are sold from Chicago to New Orleans, from New York to San Francisco. The Volpi plant is one of the few of its kind among Italians in the United States, and owes its rapid growth and steady expansion to the superiority of its quality and to the attention that many years of experience have taught Mr. Volpi to give his products, which in 1922 were awarded a Gold Medal at the Cremona (Italy) Exhibition. After all, twenty-nine years of ever growing business speak for the confidence that people have in the Volpi products."
4. Fox, Tim, ed. (1995). Where We Live: A Guide to St. Louis Communities. St. Louis, Missouri: Missouri Historical Society Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-883982-12-6. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.
  The image caption notes: "Volpi's salami factory, c. 1910. This Italian specialty food store, which opened on the Hill in 1902, was started by John Volpi, who brought in his brother-in-law, Gino Pasetti, as a business partner. Like many Hill businesses, Volpi's has stayed in the family; it is now owned and run by Armando Pasetti, who started out as an apprentice for his uncles in 1938 and took over the business in 1958. Photograph reprinted with permission of the collection of Armando Pasetti."
5. Vitale, Rio (2014). St. Louis's The Hill. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-4671-1221-5. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In 1907, John Volpi established a business at Edwards Street and Daggett Avenue. It continues to operate and manufacture Italian salami and sausage today. John Volpi was assisted for many years by Gino Pasetti. In 1922, their products were awarded a gold medal at the Cremona Exhibition in Italy. Armando Passetti (far left) is the nephew of John Volpi. When he was 14, Armando was asked by his uncle to come from Italy to learn the trade. In 1957, Armando Passetti became the president of Volpi Foods Inc. Since then, he has implemented improvements in technology and equipment without sacrificing quality or compromising the founder's standards of excellence. (Courtesy of Angela Passetti Holland.)"
6. Bannoura, Sara (2020-05-26). "St. Louis' Volpi Foods has been refining the art of dry-curing meat for over a century". Feast Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  The article notes: "Lorenza Pasetti takes a specialized horse bone in her hand. With the pointy end of the filed-down bone, she gently pokes a leg of prosciutto. Then, she smells it. It’s the same delicate process her great-uncle John Volpi used more than 100 years ago when he first started Volpi Foods in The Hill neighborhood of St. Louis. Using the horse bone to determine the performance of the production process is one of many techniques that have remained unchanged at Volpi Foods. The lauded local company is known across the country for its artisan cured meats, which are still made from recipes dating back to the early 1900s. The company’s history begins in 1900, when a 21-year-old John Volpi emigrated from Milan, Italy, to the United States – St. Louis, to be exact – in search of a better life."
7. Blume, Aimee (2014-05-14). "Salami in St. Louis: Shop in city's Italian enclave started in 1902". San Angelo Standard-Times. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  The article notes: "The tiny corner store is the same location where Giovanni (John) Volpi began his salami and prosciutto business more than 100 years ago, in 1902. Step inside and find yourself surrounded with hanging and stacked salamis, fresh sausages, wheels and wedges of cheese, and other imported Italian goods. ... The son, Armando Pasetti, came to America from Mantua in 1938 at the tender age of 14 and began learning the ropes of the business. When Volpi passed away in 1957, Pasetti became president of the successful company, Volpi Foods."
8. Stroud, Jerri (1989-05-08). "Volpi Expands, Adds Salamis". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "John Volpi & Co. is moving into the supermarket age, introducing new products and consumer-sized packages for its traditional Italian meats, says Lorenza Pasetti, operations manager for the 87-year-old firm. In the last six to eight months, Volpi has brought out three new salamis that are being sold to supermarket"
9. Negro, Linda (1997-01-12). "Proud residents tend to see the up side of life on The Hill". Evansville Press. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "John Volpi, who had perfected his recipe for Genoa salami in the basement of his home before opening the store in 1902, needed help for his growing business. He and his wife, who was the neighborhood midwife, didn't have children. ... Although the salami line has been expanded to include Gino, Napoli, Milano, Abruzzese and Filzette salami, the most popular is still the Genoa. To order it as long-time Hill residents do, just ask for a pound of Volpi's, and it will be sliced for you. The business is one of the top four specialty producers of salami and prosciutto in the United States, and it ships to customers around the world."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Volpi Foods to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. We just need two in-depth independent secondary sources and here we have a dozen of articles. Again, nominator is on a crusade to delete notable American brands without any proper WP:BEFORE. We might have to report them if this continues. 162.255.123.32 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. More than enough RS-based significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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. Cunard has identified a couple of sources which arguably meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:42, 12 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zygote Media Group

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm unsure why the last AfD nom was speedy closed by a non-admin, but there is a distinct lack of sourcing for this item. It's been tagged since 2006 and has not improved. I find nothing about this group other than the Google Body app that was taken over by them when Google discontinued it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I closed my own AfD as speedy keep as I found [[47]] and [[48]] just after submitting it but I'm not super convinced that there is enough here. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Medicine, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think the sources listed above by Let'srun are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the sources needed to meet WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm having trouble finding strong sources to back up the info in this article. Maybe letting this one go might be the best course of action. Waqar💬 18:33, 7 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Constellation

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

Fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP. References almost exclusively covers planned partnerships with more notable companies. Brandon (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Spaceflight. Brandon (talk) 02:36, 4 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!} 01:28, 11 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency

(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 [49] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The vast majority of sources in the article are primary or affiliated, or they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that discuss LADA in passing. However, we have a bare minimum pass of WP:NORG with Chatzichristodoulou et al., Martin and Keidan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 15 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.

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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost

(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]
Hi, as per WP:CORPDEPTH there a couple more recent references made even before this listing, https://von.gov.ng/website-hosting-firm-advocates-enhanced-data-protection-measures/ , https://dailytrust.com/cybersecurity-firm-urges-nigerians-to-guide-their-data-online/ . This nomination for deletion should be rescinded in my opinon 4555hhm (talk) 13:19, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 11 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!} 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are a clearly denegrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. This nomination should be rescinded and article kept. 4555hhm (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 4555hhm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. The sourcing is the usual regurgitation or company PR and the "awards" may be verifiable but they are not sufficiently significant to meet notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are clearly denigrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Even though GNG/WP:GNG as regards sources clearly states, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. WP:ORGSIG"However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." This nomination should be rescinded and article kept.@HighKing 4555hhm (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
- Comment OK 4555hhm, notwithstanding your request to apply different standards to small African companies, you've said that winning an award should be counted towards notability. WP:ORGTRIV says that non-notable awards aren't counted towards notability and if this award were notable, I'd expect it to have significant coverage or discussion, be recognised internationally, or even have its own WP page. This doesn't appear to be the case and in my experience, most "industry" awards are not notable. You also say you can identify more than 4 sources which meet the criteria - but you didn't list even one such source. Not sure if you're including the article about the award by the ADR, but that article's content fails to include in-depth "Independent Content" - for example, it is easily proven not to be "Independent" since it is a word for word copy of an article in Nairaland (can't link to it because WP doesn't allow it) nairaland.com/4816995/tfhost-awarded-hosting-provider-year this article published on the same date (without an accredited journalist) and this in Nigeria Communications Week. In addition, this copy relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from a company officer. Also, to complete your quote from ORGSIG you must also remember that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear from more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Literally nothing to establish WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Entry is sourced to primary or non-independent or unreliable sources. There is no significant coverage seen from a search for more sources. Best, Reading Beans 00:51, 28 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.

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eleven (company)

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Eleven, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This two are quite good, covering the company's workplace practices. Routine coverage from major RS is also fairly regular but not trivial. I think the recent news surrounding Prison Architect 2 ([50]) may also count as SIGCOV for the studio. OceanHok (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The developer appears notable enough to be mentione somewhere as an WP:ATD. Also related to Pneuma insidermedia.com IgelRM (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is enough coverage about the company itself to amount to WP:SIGCOV. The two articles presented above by OceanHok are particularly in-depth. The company has also received a lot of less-in-depth coverage about their games. While notability is not inherited, these articles do focus more on the company than you might expect because of the specific agreement they were trying to reach about the game (ex: [51][52][53]). Coverage definitely adds up to NCORP. C F A 💬 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG based on sources presented above. Sal2100 (talk) 17:18, 12 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.

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 13:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flexcon

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability for a company can’t be demonstrated by a few pieces of coverage in niche trade press. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 12 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise? as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 08:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clappers Records

(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]

Delete as lacking indepth sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we should be careful about deleting this. It seems to have a significant cultural impact on rap and reggae. It has an entry here which is interesting, and at African American Research Perspectives [54], of which I can only see a small part. The label had one release which seems to be of particular significance [55]. I'm not finding enough coverage for a standalone article. Perhaps redirect to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise?? It seems to be significant enough to WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 11 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The few existing sources:

Are anyone of these affiliated? Have google searches been done? Mrfoogles (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are barely-rehashed product release announcements – textbook trivial coverage that doesn't contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:31, 8 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.

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and a weak deletion nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITT Healthcare

(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. [56][57][58][59][60][61] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 5 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.

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terwin (corporation)

(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]
I checked the sources, all are paid, or not independent (EBA is a fee-based association which posts anything about their members). Forbes is not deep enough - it's just an announcement based on press-releases of the company. New Voice is an interview - definitely not independent or reliable source, Interfax is a press-release. 2603:9001:1E00:96F3:A459:81A7:7125:1D34 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete WP TOOSOON, absence of reliable independent of the subject sources. Maybe it will be easier to redirect the page to its founder. --2601:586:8401:C90:A2D2:B1FF:FE88:EFFC (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources, listed above, is dependent on the subject? This corporation is already very notable. --Perohanych (talk) 15:35, 9 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upwave

(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]

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. An analysis of sources shows the following:

This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit. jp×g 🗯️ 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking, it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do – but to do that in the first place, we need substantive coverage from independent sources to lay the groundwork for an article. – Teratix ₵ 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survata.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to disagree with both of the above two comments. Every single article on a company is a burden on the Wikipedia community to ensure it doesn't get turned into an ad. The less notable the company is the harder it is for the community to meet that burden, both because there's less content to base a neutral article on and because fewer people are likely to be watching it. This is the very reason why we have the strict notability guidelines for companies that we do. And since there's been no specific answer to Teratix's question, the argument that it fails them has gone unchallenged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:49, 13 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.

Companies proposed deletions