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

Wraith Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage and sources used consists of simple mentions or obscure websites of dubious reliability, with reliable significant coverage being in the minority. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Ohio. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is my belief that the main problem with the article is that it is old. There appear to be newer sources of higher notability and reliability stating not only much of the same information as in the article currently, but there is new information as well. It is likely that only some information will need to be removed, if at all. Sirkidd2003 (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yahaha Studios

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only demonstrated notability is gaining funding with little significant coverage to support. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Finland. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetguard Filters Private Limited

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

This article appears to be an advertisement. There is a lack of evidence supporting notability. Does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Sources cited are trivial mentions in trade press, and nothing else was found other than product listings. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject matter does not meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NCORP) as the sources that I found in the article and on the search engine are announcements, or profiles; nothing that discusses the subject significantly (WP:SIGCOV, WP:SIRS). ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FinEdge

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

A run-of-the-mill financial advisory firm that fails to meet WP:NCORP. The sources comprise PR, churnalism, self-published material, or passing mentions, and severely lack the in-depth coverage required under WP:SIRS. Yuvaank (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truemeds

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine announcements, mentions, funding rounds, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Nothing I can find meets WP:ORGCRIT. History shows this was moved to draft but then moved back to mainspace. CNMall41 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Xpress

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

Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NCORP. There was no SIGCOV after Googling, just more press releases and WP:ROUTINE. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Manor

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

Clear COI. User who created this article has been attempting to create it since 2007. Significant coverage is clearly lacking, and there doesn't seem to be any indication of notability. Article also contains promotional content. Fails WP:NCORP. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Companies, and Maryland. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability per WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG. Seems like promo by a COI editor. Netherzone (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious COI as admitted by the editor themselves on the talk page. Guppy2133 (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GetSmarter

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

It doesn't look like there's really any sigcov for GetSmarter outside of its acquisition by 2U, it should probably redirect to its parent company 2U (company). BuySomeApples (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant coverage outside ROTM, therefore it should be deleted per WP:NORG. --hroest 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conscium

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

TOO SOON, as I cannot find reliable sources. References are not focused on the Conscium company. Cinder painter (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable for an entry in the encyclopedia at this time. Though WP:RS are listed in the references, they are behind paywall so accessing them for an assessment was impossible. But before search did turn out any impressive result for notability. Patre23 (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. First off, it was written by ChatGPT and/or an overpaid editor for hire. Secondly, this company is too new to be the subject of an encyclopedia article; everything written in any of the sources is merely news. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CI Capital Partners

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

Per WP:SERIESA; this article doesn't include anything that makes the company notable, and a search also turns up nothing but announcements and mentions in relation to other companies. FalconK (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and New York. FalconK (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per FalconK - also, we are not LinkedIn or Forbes. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beenox

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. The most prominent coverage I found is after the acquisition from gamesindustry.biz. A list of games alone is as good as a games developed by Beenox category. I suggest a redirect to Activision and perhaps a merge of the paragraph of the founder departure and new office. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. IgelRM (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activision as nominated based on WP:NCORP. Studio articles that function as little else as lists of games don't demonstrate the notability of the developer without deeper coverage - see thoughts at WP:NOTWORK. That coverage is not really there once you take out all the On X date, Beenox released Y title content. That said, it's not very weak, just not enough to justify an article on presented sourcing. Could be if more of the ilk like the GamesIndustry.biz coverage is found. This outlet seems to have had a porting role in a large number of high-profile games. Is there more out there? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The below sources have established the existence of coverage to warrant a keep. Thanks to @Tanonero: and @Hannes Röst: for taking a look and finding more sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces: I am just curious, and I don't mean to be confrontational, but wouldn't it have been easier if you had looked for the sources yourself and ascertained the potential notability of the article, instead of opening a deletion process? --Tanonero (msg) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough history to show the company's progression and its relevance within the game industry. There is also plenty of coverage on GamesIndustry.biz to demonstrate the company's notability and that can easily be integrated into the article, for instance, 1, 2, 3, and 4 and many more. Wikipedia would gain nothing by deleting this article. --Tanonero (msg) 15:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I linked the 3 source in my nomination already. Further the 1 source is an interview about places to work, which generally don't add notability. The 4 source is an interview about Activision and licensed games.

From a WP:BEFORE, the founder Dominique Brown has more coverage than this company. What this AFD tries to achieve is more equal appliance of policy that isn't a video game database. IgelRM (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think there is enough there to justify an article, some more articles from different sources [1] [2] [3] and the article contains more than just a list of titles. --hroest 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first 2 sources are press releases and after Activision's acquisition. Edit Correction: the 3 source is about Activision and the developer staffing up for Call of Duty, not particular significant? IgelRM (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Karachi

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Tons of press releases and churnalism but everything is routine coverage that falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. There is nothing inherently notable about an airline so likely WP:TOOSOON. CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No planes, no flights, no passengers, no article. Nathannah • 📮 00:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Nathannah above. There's barely a company right now. If the company grows and becomes notable, it can get an article. Tepkunset (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gifted Students' School (Iraq)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced since creation more than 15 years earlier, all sources listed in previous AfD only mention this tangentially, does not meet WP:GNG. Coeusin (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Schools, and Iraq. Coeusin (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely unsourced article, there is no indication of notability of this school, not even a list of notable alumni or any mention in a source that is independent of the subject. Even the sources that do exist in the arabic article are not in-depth but short blurbs. --hroest 15:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. There's no allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, I could not find sources on this subject that would grant notability. Garsh (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuy

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a G4, but it doesn't appear that the new information meets N:ORG either, so bringing it here for further discussion. Star Mississippi 00:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Internet, and Kuwait. Star Mississippi 00:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good reliable coverage in The Free Press Journal, Al Rai (Kuwaiti newspaper) and some other. I see here that local big newspapers give more in-depths coverage beyond trivial reporting. --Salamandra-12 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZeptoLab

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

Whilst the 'Cut the Rope' game is clearly notable, I don't think the company ZeptoLab actually is. They only get a passing mention in most of the sources - I am yet to find significant coverage of ZeptoLab - and this is reflected in the content of the article. The article's main content is about 'Cut the Rope' and otherwise only serves as a list of Cut the Rope spin-off games they have created, which we already have at Cut the Rope (video game). OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and Companies. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cut the Rope as an WP:ATD, the article looks like it discusses the game as a franchise. – The Grid (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several sources: Pocket Gamer [4] [5], The Village [6], Kommersant [7], GQ Russia [8], Venturebeat [9], Fast Company [10] [11], Bloomberg [12]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not all, but most, of the references listed by Jovamilic97 meet WP:ORGCRIT so that would put it over the hurdle for meeting WP:NCORP. Coupled by the book references found I would say the company is more than notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others, clearly notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep; significant Russian sources signify notability. But the article certainly needs WP:FIXABLE significant work. IgelRM (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Learn

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

This is an improvement over Infinity learn. However, the article still lacks reliable coverage. An online search of this edtech brand produces press releases covering Sri Chaitanya and few things of use here. I am not confident that this brand meets WP:NCORP. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 05:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and salt both titles for bludgeoning attempts. I don't see any sources published since the last AfD that would show how this meets WP:NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXET-TV

AfDs for this article:

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

Same rationale as the 2024 deletion nomination. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. CNMall41 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Philippines. CNMall41 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources in its history, also, none of the sources are from TV5's websites. RandomMe98 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see press releases and churnalism. Are there any that talk about it in-depth? --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any in-depth information about recent developments, most of my searches for TV5 Davao even on Rappler are scarce, it doesn't help that Philippine TV is one of my weakest points, the community is heavily reliant on misinformation and also false claims that the station existed before Martial Law, I replaced one of the sources with one from Rappler which covered the same as the previous source, but the problem with the Big 3 networks is the amount of churnalism and shownalism that I find, which is excessive RandomMe98 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took a look at the Rapper source and it mentions the parent network (TV5), but not this individual channel. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately I think I should quit this article, because there is little to no information. Also it doesn't help that local programming is minimal since its beginnings RandomMe98 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access (e.g., know a language other than English) to any non-English sourcing by chance? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdcooper, @Ohnoitsjamie, @CNMall41, @Bbb23, @RandomMe98, @Khairul hazim, @ViperSnake151.... Isn't it also a notable and reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic regarding the Philippine TV like this....???!!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxcPVBBrJ74 202.67.47.23 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are scarce, and information is heavily conflictive. Moreover, the callsigns are not used in the Philippine newspaper sources I find RandomMe98 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie 223.255.224.100 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WayKurat 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Myrabert01, @Vineyard93 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dani1603, @Pratama26 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobSanchez295, @Señor verde 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network

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

Fails WP:NLIST as sources do not talk about the stations as a whole. Most of the stations do not have Wikipedia pages and some that do should be sent to AfD as well (including some that have no sources at all). CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Companies, Lists, and Philippines. CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Possibly Merge summary/overview (not yet written) into TV5 Network Inc. Jdcooper (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TV5 Network Inc. does not provide any listing TV stations on their annual reports. Only on the NTC TV stations as of December 2024. Vineyard93 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the NTC list count as reliable? RandomMe98 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia requires reliable sources. IP range blocked for tiresome pinging. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ohnoitsjamie: it's the same compulsive over-tagger we were discussing recently. Jdcooper (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Planet

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

Suspect WP:UCOI, related to Smilegate. Smilegate has had a series of single-purpose accounts engage in likely COI on the English Wikipedia in recent months [13]. This user is just one in a pattern of COI editing. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and South Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I can verify it exists but cannot find significant coverage for a standalone page. May I suggest WP:COIN for the editing behavior as that does not determine notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newcleo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Deleted at this discussion but then recreated under a name variant (NewCleo) before being moved to Newcleo. Clearly WP:COI editing and likely PAID. As far as notability, the only thing happening since last AfD was an agreement it entered into with another company. However, all press is routine and falls short of WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous participants, @Oaktree b:, @Indefensible:, @HighKing:, @VantBellypo:, @Alpha3031:, @Shushugah:--CNMall41 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check list of sources in the newcleo talk page, there is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --Robertiki (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary keep based on quickly reviewing my previous comments. In my opinion, the previous AfD discussion was highly subjective but with the quality and number of article supporters it could have easily resulted in keep instead of redirect. I am sure those who voted in opposition will again state otherwise, but again the judgement is highly subjective. However I have not reviewed the latest version and I am no longer very active in AfD, but want to enter this vote to forestall a procedural close based on my previous support. - Indefensible (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: delete almost all leaving a stub and slowly add from the deleted text (recoverable from the page history) or new independent content, to rebuild the page without the promo. --Robertiki (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the newcleo talk page I have just placed a list of independent sources to rebuild the page. --Robertiki (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Building the page and showing notability are not the same. There are a lot of sources that can be used to build the page, but if it isn't notable, no amount of rebuilding will work. Out of the long list of sources on the talk page, can you provide the list (here on this AfD so we can all assess them) of sources that show notability? The ones that you believe meet WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CNMall41. No sigcov created since and before search doesn't yield anything beyond routine financial updates. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:SIGCOV ? Have you verified the list of sources in the talk page ? --Robertiki (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editor who approved NewCleo @CF-501 Falcon: --Robertiki (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I originally accepted based of WP:GNG. My original thought was that the wording could be improved, for WP:NPOV but the sourcing was fine. If the community disagrees, I have no qualms about deletion. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 12:39, 9 June 2025 (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. Robertiki, I've reviewed the 28 sources you've posted on the Talk page. As a comment, WP:REFBOMBING won't endear you to contributors at AfD - you only need to identify a minimum of two sources that meet the criteria. Posting 28 sources often demonstrates that the editor is not familiar with GNG/WP:NCORP criteria and is possibly of the opinion that weight is given to a volume of sources (which is not the case). I considered posting a detailed review of each source here, but since most fail for the same reason(s) a summary will suffice. As a simple and easily-understood rule, articles that rely entirely on quotations from execs, or other information provided by the company such as financial forecasts, forward-looking aspirational statements and announcements fail the criteria as those articles are not independent, regardless of whether the information has simply been merely reworded. If the article does not contain original/independent analysis/fact checking/investigation content, the it has no independent content which meets the criteria and fails ORGIND. Reviewing the articles, searching for independent content, proved futile. Time and again the references regurgitate company announcements and executive quotations or are mere mentions. Not a single reference meets GNG/NCORP criteria. If anyone finds a source they believe meets the criteria, do everyone a favour and post a link and also identify the specific page/paragraph which contains the in-depth independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing from the previous AfD discssion, I still disagree with HighKing's evaluation of the sources. For example, looking in particular at the article by Le Monde https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2023/03/21/nuclear-power-newcleo-is-on-its-way-to-becoming-europe-s-best-funded-start-up_6020212_143.html, which HighKing previously described as merely a "puff profile" that is "regurgitating positive information about the company" based on a company announcement https://web.archive.org/web/20230320160310/https://www.newcleo.com/press-releases/newcleo-launches-equity-raise-of-up-to-e1bn-for-its-unique-circular-next-generation-nuclear-energy-solution/. HighKing's description is not accurate in my opinion. The article by Le Monde states (via translation from the original in French):
The gamble of the Turin physicist Stefano Buono, founder of Newcleo, is to take up a technology well-known to the French, that of the Superphénix fast-breeder reactor which was abandoned in 1997 by the French government after innumerable technical problems, an exorbitant cost and considerable opposition of environmentalists who came to power in the government of France's former prime minister Lionel Jospin.

This is highlighting multiple risks in Newcleo's business model and is NOT mentioned anywhere in Newcleo's company announcement. Which is to say it is independent analysis providing journalistic context. Furthermore, the article by Le Monde mentions the competitive nature of the industry with "nearly 80 start-ups around the world" and highlighting 2 other specific competitors, Hexana and Stellaria, which again are not mentioned anywhere in Newcleo's announcement. Therefore HighKing's description of the source is not correct, and therefore his analysis is flawed in my opinion.

On a side note, when there is deadlock with arguments such as the above going unanswered as in the previous AfD, the correct procedural outcome should be to close as no consensus. - Indefensible (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why your previous post went unanswered is because the AfD was closed less than 6 hours later. The previous AfD demonstrated your unfamiliarity with how GNG/NCORP guidelines are applied, and from your comment above, it doesn't appear that you've absorbed or accepted any of what was said previously. I commented previously on the puff profile which appeared in Le Monde - if you honestly can identify this as relying entirely on information provided by the company with zero "independent content" by way of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, then we can simply agree to disagree and let others form their own opinion with overwhelming the discussion. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we can agree to disagree. I am reminded why I do not think AfD is the best way to spend my time. Cheers. - Indefensible (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented the sources list in the talk page, striking sources not to be considered. I am also mumbling if we should ask if editor User:Giovagua is to be blocked for circumventing the Newcleo page redirect with a similar name (NewCleo). Beside che correct title should be newcleo with first letter lowcase. --Robertiki (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you grasp "independent content" if you didn't consider striking articles which *rely* entirely on company announcements. Rewording an announcement but otherwise regurgitating the exact same content is not "independent content". HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The correct outcome would be to adhere to the result of the previous discussion, and the correct result of that was to exclude any sources where there is doubt based on what is explicitly stated in the relevant guideline (WP:SIRS). If the evaluation of best sources that could be found are so subjective, then find better sources. I was considering doing another source search to look at things, but if this is the argument then it would seem to be a waste of time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, why are we even having this at AfD, the redirect should simply be reinstated. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to do so but it was objected to. Seems like a waste of AfD since the recreation was circumventing the previous discussion (under different name variation to avoid detection). --CNMall41 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it apparently went through review and was approved per the above, so this is entirely appropriate. - Indefensible (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD would have gone to another relist had it not been at the limit per the admin's comment, and the final relist had said keep or no consensus was likely; there was not enough support to delete, and then it was redirected (which is not delete). Based on the ongoing argument, that could have been no consensus. As I said before, it was highly subjective and hardly a conclusive precedent to use now. - Indefensible (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could have requested deletion review at that time. I do not see where someone did so the results are the results and speculation on what "would have" happened are irrelevant. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could have but honestly I did not see the point. And I do not currently plan to participate in AfD further, although it does seem to be largely the same familiar names and I do appreciate the ping. It might be the best use of time for some but not for me. Take care. - Indefensible (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FuelTech

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

I couldn't find real WP:SIGCOV for this, excluding press releases, copies of press releases on industry websites, and one promotional interview. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TNT. "After dominating..." "pioneered..." The rest reads like a company brochure. Moving to draft could be an WP:ATD but I cannot find anything meeting WP:CORPDEPTH so not sure if it can be fixed. Would also suggest a merge with Anderson Dick but that looks like a mess and possibly not notable either. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Team GrisGris

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

No reliable sources, appears to fail WP:NCORP, possible redirect to Corpse Party. IgelRM (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. IgelRM (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace It seems like some effort has been put into this company's Wikipedia page, but it seems to have no sources of note or that meet Wikipedia standards. Rather than simply deleting, I would move it to the draftspace to continue to gather sources. PickleG13 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corpse Party, does not demonstrate passing of WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at first instance - draftifying is nice, but a cursory search doesn't yield a lot unless there is WP:NONENG coverage out there. The article patently fails WP:NCORP and the article is written in a way that merely lists the games published instead of providing background information - see WP:NOTWORK. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxposure Media Group

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Delhi, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Menlo Microsystems

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG and most WP:PROMO. - Amigao (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just an advertisement. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thank you for reviewing the entry. I'm not experienced in creating new articles and obviously I've messed up on this. Can you help with some guidelines of what would be needed to make this article acceptable? Is it about the quality of the references (I'll look at the guidelines) or are there other issues. Would love to learn a little so I don't waste your time with articles that are not of sufficient quality again in the future. MikeMaynardUK (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaanxi Fast Auto Drive

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

No wp:sigcov, fails wp:ncorp ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 13:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 13:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is significant independent coverage of the company, especially in the context of its acquisition of Qinchuan machine tool. Should be enough to meet WP:NCORP.

Liu Xiao, 走进市场主体丨“老国企”缘何“霸榜”全球16年？ Market Entrants: Why have “old state-owned enterprises” dominated the global rankings for 16 years? (Xinhua 2022) [14] Lengthy profile of Fast and its dark factory manufacturing

Zhang Weiran, With net profit down by more than 80%, how can Qinchuan Machine Tool get out of the siege? 净利润下降超八成，秦川机床如何走出围城？(The Paper Shaanxi 2024) [15] Lengthy discussion of a Fast subsidiary

There has been no dividend for ten years, and performance depends on subsidies. Faced with the trend of "Fast's acquisition + domestic substitution of high-end machine tools, can Qinchuan Machine Tool learn from its mistakes and become stronger? 十年未分红，业绩靠补助，面对“法士特入主+高端机床国产替代”风口，秦川机床能否知耻而后勇？ (Sina Finance 2022) [16] More discussion of subsidiary along with several paragraphs of corporate history of Fast

Oblivy (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oblivy's sources. --Iiii I I I (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The sources found by Jumpytoo.
2. Wang, Pinzhen 王品蓁 (2022). "作业成本法在制造企业中的应用——以陕西法士特汽车传动集团公司为例" [Application of Activity-Based Costing in Manufacturing Enterprises: A Case Study of Shaanxi Fast Auto Drive Group Company]. 商场现代化 [Market Modernization] (in Chinese). No. 12. doi:10.14013/j.cnki.scxdh.2022.12.021. ISSN 1006-3102. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes: "作业成本法自诞生以来，从最开始的成本会计计算方法演变发展为如今的成本管理和产品规划的决策工具。近年来，随着我国汽车制造业飞速发展，与其相关的配套产业也迎来了较大的发展，作为汽车零部件制造商的陕西法士特公司，其对上游企业的过度依赖，制造设备等也较为单一，随着近年来间接费用在产品成本中比重增加，继续使用机械工时进行成本分配，成本信息失真的问题就更有可能出现。本文通过对法士特公司现行成本核算方法的研究，指出其当前所使用的传统成本核算方法的不足，并探讨为何要改用作业成本法进行核算，进一步提出其在推行作业成本法的过程中可能遭遇到的阻力并给出相关意见与方案。"
  From Google Translate: "Since its birth, activity-based costing has evolved from the initial cost accounting calculation method to today's decision-making tool for cost management and product planning. In recent years, with the rapid development of my country's automobile manufacturing industry, its related supporting industries have also ushered in a great development. As an automobile parts manufacturer, Shaanxi Fast Company has excessive dependence on upstream companies, and its manufacturing equipment is relatively simple. With the increase in the proportion of indirect costs in product costs in recent years, the cost information distortion problem is more likely to occur if the cost allocation is continued using machine hours. This paper studies the current cost accounting method of Fast Company, points out the shortcomings of the traditional cost accounting method currently used by it, and explores why it should switch to activity-based costing for accounting. It further proposes the resistance it may encounter in the process of implementing activity-based costing and gives relevant opinions and plans."
3. Ma, Deping 马德平; Gao, Xiaotao 高晓涛 (2015). "陕西法士特年销售收入超百亿2014" [Shaanxi Fast Auto Drive Exceeds 10 Billion Yuan in Annual Sales Revenue in 2014]. 现代企业 [Modern Enterprise] (in Chinese). No. 2. ISSN 1000-9671. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes: "＜正＞本刊讯2014年,陕西法士特集团公司累计实现销售收入119亿元,同比增长11%,产销汽车变速器63万台、同比增长11.3%,出口创汇4062万美元,经营业绩增幅明显高于行业增长水平,各项经营指标连续十二年名列全国齿轮行业第一,重型汽车变速器年产销量连续九年稳居世界第一。去年,法士特新产品全面发力,为整车轻量化和节能化而设计的全铝合金壳体变速器增势迅猛,产销量已占变速器总销量20%以上,全面满足了节能减排、低碳环保的市场需求,成为推动企业生产经营稳健增长新亮点。自主研发的具有完全自主知识产"
  From Google Translate: "According to our magazine, in 2014, Shaanxi Fast Gear Group Co., Ltd. achieved a total sales revenue of 11.9 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 11%. It produced and sold 630,000 automobile transmissions, a year-on-year increase of 11.3%. Its exports earned 40.62 million US dollars. The growth rate of its operating performance was significantly higher than the industry growth rate. Various operating indicators have ranked first in the national gear industry for twelve consecutive years, and the annual production and sales of heavy-duty automobile transmissions have ranked first in the world for nine consecutive years. Last year, Fast's new products were fully launched. The all-aluminum alloy housing transmission designed for lightweight and energy-saving vehicles has grown rapidly. The production and sales volume has accounted for more than 20% of the total transmission sales volume, fully meeting the market demand for energy conservation, emission reduction, low carbon and environmental protection, and becoming a new highlight in promoting the steady growth of the company's production and operation. Self-developed products with completely independent intellectual property rights"
4. "Shaanxi Fast Gear Co., Ltd". 陕西政报 [Gazette of the Shaanxi Provincial People's Government] (in Chinese). No. 7. 2003. ISSN 1003-9333. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes: "陕西法士特齿轮有限责任公司是由陕西汽车齿轮总厂与湖南湘火炬投资股份有限公司共同投资组建的,现有西安、宝鸡两大生产基地,占地67万平方米,职工3000人。主要生产重型汽车变速器、分动器、取力器、各种汽车齿轮及其锻件。主导产品为从美国引进的号称"世界王牌"的富勒变速器,自投产以来一直是我国重型汽车市场的主流产品,现已占有国内15吨以上重型汽车市场85%以上的份额。法士特公司拥有强大的齿轮配件生产能力,率先在国内同行业中进入国际 OEM配套领域,年出口齿轮200万只以上,创汇额位居国内同行业之首。"
  From Google Translate: "Shaanxi Fast Gear Co., Ltd. was jointly invested and established by Shaanxi Automobile Gear Factory and Hunan Xianghuoju Investment Co., Ltd. It currently has two major production bases in Xi'an and Baoji, covering an area of 670,000 square meters and 3,000 employees. It mainly produces heavy-duty automobile transmissions, transfer cases, power take-offs, various automobile gears and forgings. The leading product is the Fuller transmission introduced from the United States, known as the "world ace". Since its production, it has been the mainstream product in my country's heavy-duty automobile market and now occupies more than 85% of the domestic heavy-duty automobile market above 15 tons. Fast has a strong gear parts production capacity and is the first in the domestic industry to enter the international OEM supporting field. It exports more than 2 million gears annually and ranks first in the domestic industry in terms of foreign exchange earnings."
5. "陕西法士特汽车传动集团公司" [Shaanxi Fast Automotive Transmission Group Co., Ltd.]. 陕西工业和信息化年鉴 [Shaanxi Industrial and Information Technology Yearbook] (in Chinese). 2020. pp. 342–344. doi:10.40149/y.cnki.yjisa.2021.001110. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes: "该公司始建于1968年。旗下拥有10多家控、参股子公司,在泰国建有独资工厂,在美国设有分销公司,是中国齿轮行业首家年产销超100亿元企业。公司先后获“全国文明单位”“全国五一劳动奖状”“全国国企十大典型”“全国企业文化建设最佳实践企业”“中国工业大奖"
  From Google Translate: "The company was founded in 1968. It has more than 10 holding and shareholding subsidiaries, a wholly-owned factory in Thailand, and a distribution company in the United States. It is the first enterprise in China's gear industry with an annual production and sales of more than 10 billion yuan. The company has successively won the "National Civilized Unit", "National May 1st Labor Award", "Top Ten Typical State-owned Enterprises in the Country", "National Best Practice Enterprise for Corporate Culture Construction", "China Industrial Award""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shaanxi Fast Auto Drive (simplified Chinese: 陕西法士特集团; traditional Chinese: 陝西法士特集團) 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) 09:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omneky

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. All citations are press releases, media wires, or otherwise non-independent. No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Blackpot-kettle (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. There are TechCrunch (2022, Reference #15) and Adweek (2022, Reference #19) articles but nothing from curated searches that is more recent to indicate these are anything more than a WP:SPIP blip.

Per nominator, References #1, 7-14, 16, 18, 20-23, 26-32 are some form of wire release; References #2, 4, 24 are brief mentions, Reference #25 is similar to the aforementioned TechCrunch and Adweek blip; Reference #6 is a contributor article; Reference #5 is an interview. I will refrain from commenting on the merits of References #3 and 17 not knowing the verifiability of Japanese but the former does say "PR Times" in the markup. Astapor12 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while most of the references are similar to press-releases, the TechCrunch, non-contributor Forbes (video on best AI startups), google books (search via books shows significant coverage) and other media provide some good reliable media coverage (not SPIP or paid). Norlk (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep techrunch, adweek and buisnessinsider give deep coverage to meet NCORP and count as reliable coverage.--Salamandra-12 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lodestone Games

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

This video game company appears to have only worked on one game, PlanetSide, with two others being cancelled and the company becoming defunct. As such there doesn't appear to be any sources about the company, including when it dissolved. GamerPro64 05:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Business, Companies, and Virginia. GamerPro64 05:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PlanetSide (video game). I added a mention to the article about Lodestone Games. --Mika1h (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above on current sourcing. Studio articles whose sourcing is non-existent or mostly focused on a game rather than the studio itself may run afoul of notability: see WP:NOTWORK for this rationale. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I only found a PR on Jameson's background. IgelRM (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neuron (company)

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

I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for this blockchain company, even after searching for stuff under the founders' names and different variations of the company's name. The sources are all primary sources or routine coverage in unreliable sources. Not really anything that meets WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and United Kingdom. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Aviation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is based on non-reliable sources, and not a single reference appears to be strong or convincing. If anyone comes across any reliable and in-depth coverage related to this topic, please do ping me, I'd be happy to reconsider my decision. Thank you! Baqi:) (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’ve noticed that several of the sources included incorrect or broken URLs. I’ve corrected these where possible and removed any uncredited information. I hope this helps strengthen the article. Thank you! Lexiconia (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is usually a sign that the article was written by some AI. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, does not meet WP:NCOMPANY or WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Credible sources used following a third iteration and notable verified information found within the platform X (formerly twitter) Blossom Index (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Twitter (and other social media) is not reliable and shouldn't be used as verification. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to support WP:NCORP notability. References consist of warmed-over press releases and routine coverage (funding, partnership, etc.) An independent search failed to find non-trivial independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Galactic

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

Unsourced article, fails WP:GNG FMSky (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Spaceflight, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete zero google news hits, which is telling for an American entity. Unreferenced for 9 years. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desta Global

AfDs for this article:

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

If one checks Google News and other news, the company cannot be named notable. Just random here and there blogs, mentions, wp:churnalism, newswire releases, WOW award, RMAI Flame award. The previous discussion was not representative and resulted in no consensus. Many of the sources have been already removed as spam. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Technology, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Of the references for DestaGlobal, Startup Success Stories India, Techcircle, Business Standard India, The Hindu Business Line (partially neutral), InterCon Dubai (YouTube), EVENTFAQS Media, Rural Marketing, and Digital Empowerment Foundation are focused on DestaGlobal’s success, awards, and positive impact. Most of these are based on the company’s claims without independent verification. The National and The Hindu are references that adhere to journalistic standards, providing neutral information about DestaGlobal’s work, but they lack detailed information. Hence, they are not sufficient to strongly support the claims. Some people may have different opinions about these two sources.-SachinSwami (talk) 7:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

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 14:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeHaat

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

No sources with SIGNIFICANT Coverage; basically we have only news on raises of money, Indian startup achievements, and acquisitions. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Technology, and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 5 June 2025 (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.

Edible Communities

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

This company isn't notable. It fails to meet Wikipedia:GNG and feels like self-promotion. Eric Schucht (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely self-promotion. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "soft delete", but reopened upon request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute (company)

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

Non-notable company with almost literally no outside coverage. Former producers and directors section is unsourced (and the "former" status is not explained), the Films produced both point to IMDb pages, and the only other citations are:

A press release, which is a dead link with no accessible archive
A "Product Placement News" article, which is a dead link with no accessible archive
The company's LinkedIn page...twice (as sources 2 and 6)

The only other sources I could find were this Variety profile from March 2009 and this Fxguide article about Bay buying Digital Domain, both of which only briefly mentions the Institute and certainly don't qualify as significant coverage. Unless others have more luck finding sources, this is worth a single-sentence mention in Bay's article at best. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 02:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 02:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appinventiv Technologies

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

Google News results outside of the company's own blog posts are all your usual WP:SERIESA type content, some mentions in ProQuest but nothing substantial. All indications are that it is currently WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this company. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references used in this article are weak to satisfy notability guidelines of a company. This can be kept if significant coverage is provided. CresiaBilli (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability also don't have any significant media Coverage.Almandavi (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe it's still too early to consider the company notable. Even a simple Google search, particularly under the News tab, mostly shows articles from the company's own website rather than coverage from independent, reliable sources. Since there isn’t sufficient evidence of notability at this point, the company doesn't meet the required standards. Best of luck for the future! Baqi:) (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was a relisting warranted? – The Grid (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the google news results are from "Appinventiv " so some paid PR going on. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - kindly asking to move to draft, as the page has been reduced by some other editors and many sources were deleted. I need some time to evaluate and add new ones and then will submit at AfC. --Sonic-speed panda (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fassforward

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

Besides WP:FORBESCON and non-notable awards, I'm not seeing any SIGCOV for this company. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Airlines

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

Withdraw as nom for reasons stated below This is an article on an airline that operated three (3), eight seater aircraft for a six year period in the 1980s. It's sourced entirely to non-RS that consist of things like scans of flight schedules. ~~A WP:BEFORE finds copious references to the better-known Spanish airline of the same name but not this one. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.~~ Chetsford (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC); edited 18:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Wyoming. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find various airline centennial events, nothing for this particular operator of aircraft.Sources in the article are non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: multiple citations are available in newspapers.com. I don't have full access to post links, but if you do a search there, you will see a few articles from 1981 to 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkkingg (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Withdraw as Nom as per Hkkingg. My initial BEFORE on newspapers.com turned up a bunch of hits to the Spanish airline's crash. When I narrowed the search to just Wyoming there's enough here that this (surprisingly) passes NCORP. Chetsford (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are so geographically limited would it meet WP:AUD? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It had a few short pieces distributed by wire services that got pick-up outside Wyoming (e.g. here [17] in the Santa Barbara News-Press)

'Delete Generally, a company needs more sources to demonstrate notability. If someone is able to find more sources to show that the company is notable, please let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although nom has withdrawn, there are still two outstanding delete !votes, and it might be worth discussing what specific sources contribute to notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to find sources or redirect to this page: The article currently only has sources for old timetables and one page listing. If more articles exist as is discussed above perhaps it qualifies for its own article, but presently I don't see it. I opt to improve articles where possible rather than delete, so that reflects in my vote! 11WB (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Ballot Group

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

Bit of a tricky one I think, given that it gets mentioned all the time, e.g., for their failed Georgia bid and it's considered a major vendor in the industry (see Axios, Engadget), but most of the more in-depth sources are the sort of WP:TRADESy sources that we would not typically consider to meet WP:ORGCRIT, for example InformationWeek / Dark Reading and Xconomy.

There are a couple of scholarly sources mentioning the company also, for example, Bernhard et al. (2019) and his later PhD thesis, Bernhard (2020), but I don't think it quite meets the criteria for depth of coverage. The best news source I found would probably be Washington Monthly, but again I don't think it quite meets the "directly and in-detail" threshold that we would need to write an article from it.

It would be a bit of a shame to have absolutely nothing on the company, but there are a few places where it is mentioned, so I figure I'd propose it as a redirect to Election audit § Ballot scans for 100% audits (given they're best known for their auditing software), or one of the other places where Numbersinstitute has added a mention. Any alternate proposals would also be appreciated! Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, Technology, and Massachusetts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with a redirect. kencf0618 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May Mobility

AfDs for this article:

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

Continues to fail WP:NORG and reads like an advertisement. - Amigao (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Transportation, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Struggling to find three decent sources to establish notability as a company. The use of closely paraphrased copyright violations (see article history) is another factor in recommending deletion - I am not confident that other parts of the content have been similarly plagiarised. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard History

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

Fails WP:ORG. Insignificant coverage in reliable sources; mostly self-sourced sources or trivial coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Companies. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, none of the media references are "trivial", they are all stories ABOUT Backyard History - which is itself published in 12-20 papers across Atlantic Canada (and has spawned 3 books, a television show, podcast, etc) - and functionally none of the sources are "self-references', they are the NB Authors government site, the province's largest media Telegraph-Journal, CTV, Yahoo News and CBC - those would be among the largest regional news outlets that exist nationwide - in addition to being referenced on the SJ tourism site, his alumni newspaper and other small outlets. (I'm not him, I've never met him, I noticed they are also used as a source on 9 different Wikipedia articles about Atlantic Canadian history). Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did an analysis of the sources originally present on this article, after it was tagged for notability and that tag was subsequently removed. My analysis is available on the talk page for the article, and determined that significant coverage specifically about Backyard History is lacking. I did some major Googling, and turned up some additional sources which were then added, but the bar for web content is decidedly higher and I'm unsure if this has met it. I do however believe that with the references on this article, along with others that discuss Andrew MacLean, an article about him could be created which this could then be redirected to. I would prefer to abstain from voting on this one, and this comment should not be interpreted as support for keeping or deleting this... Just wanted to provide some context. MediaKyle (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cormier, Kristina (2024-01-03). "Un balado sur les histoires méconnues du Canada atlantique se transforme en livre" [A Podcast About Little-Known Stories From Atlantic Canada Is Being Turned Into a Book] (in French). Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "Backyard History est un balado qui explore les histoires méconnues du Nouveau-Brunswick et de l'Atlantique. Ces histoires sont désormais offertes dans un livre. Le livre, disponible uniquement en anglais pour le moment, a vite trouvé preneurs. Ce succès a surpris l'auteur, l’historien Andrew MacLean de Fredericton. La première impression s’est rapidement écoulée et il attend une réimpression au cours des prochains jours. Le balado anglophone Backyard History est né lors de la pandémie. Il transporte ses auditeurs dans le temps afin de découvrir des légendes, des histoires connues ou méconnues du Canada atlantique qui datent de nombreuses années et même de siècles."
  From Google Translate: "Backyard History is a podcast that explores the little-known stories of New Brunswick and the Atlantic region. These stories are now available in a book. The book, currently available only in English, quickly found buyers. This success surprised the author, Fredericton historian Andrew MacLean. The first printing sold out quickly, and he expects a reprint in the coming days. The English-language podcast Backyard History was born during the pandemic. It transports its listeners back in time to discover legends, well-known and little-known stories of Atlantic Canada that date back many years, even centuries."
2. Cochrane, Alan (2025-04-03). "Backyard History author carries on tradition of storytelling: Andrew MacLean has compiled three books, weekly newspaper columns, website and podcasts with actors who bring old stories to life". Telegraph-Journal. p. A10. ProQuest 3186672039. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "Andrew MacLean has turned his passion for historical research into a brand called Backyard History, with weekly newspaper columns, three books, a website and podcasts telling unusual stories from Atlantic Canada. From the tale of the Dungarvon Whooper in the Miramichi to rum-runners shooting it out with police in Bouctouche, and a Russian bomber landing in Miscou Island, MacLean says he's carrying on the Maritime tradition of storytelling, while researching the facts behind them. ... His three books include "Backyard History: Forgotten Stories From Atlantic Canada's Past," volumes one and two; and "Rebellious Women in the Maritimes," which includes stories about women who have done extraordinary things, told through various letters, diaries and historic documents."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Backyard History to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source--six sentences long--could be described as "trivial mention". The second source is a bio for Andrew MacLean. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the subject, with the subject referenced in the headline, exclusively about the subject and its creator, is not a "trivial mention". "Trivial mention" is when there's an article about a car accident and it says "a nearby bystander, author Andrew Maclean, whose program hits Bell TV this summer, says the green pick-up truck swerved just before the incident". Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple important things to note here. First of all, Backyard History is described in the article as a "history project" - it is a newspaper column, podcast, and 5-episode docuseries at this time. The Telegraph-Journal is not an independent source, as they are one of the main publishers of the Backyard History column, it's still a good source but may not contribute to GNG for this reason. The CBC Radio-Canada article I think would contribute to GNG, but that's really about it - there's much more coverage about Andrew MacLean than there is about Backyard History specifically. MediaKyle (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:02, 6 June 2025 (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 redirect‎ to Alex Wilhelm. Sandstein 17:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16 Entertainment

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

Its founder Alex Wilhelm is notable, but this company of his has no significant coverage in WP:RS. Hmr (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Hmr (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable as sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. An WP:ATD could be a redirect to founder but that is assuming he is notable. There are also COI concerns and while those do not bear on the AfD, it would be appropriate to check notability on the founder as opposed to assuming he is. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I spit into the wind. Even the nominator agrees the founder is notable, and so there is commonsense need for a bluelink here to direct toward that article. Once again...these do not need to come to AfD. A merge request is the appropriate venue. Chubbles (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, like to live dangerously. lol. I took a close look and not so sure he does although I will not nominate it during this AfD so as not to seem bludgeoning. He has one in-depth piece in Billboard but it is part of 40/40. The rest seems to be mentions or routine coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 40/40 disqualifies the piece, other Billboard coverage is also strong. Maybe Alex Wilhelm is on edge of notability, I'm leaning more toward notable. There's reference spam here too - worth a major clean up. Hmr (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your contention and you may be right. I took another look and think I will take to AfD after this is over here. Again, don't want it to come across as disruptive. I basically see him on a bunch of lists but nothing I can find says he would be notable for being on such lists. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Wilhelm - I don't see any worthwhile material in this article that isn't already in the Wilhelm article, so while I would normally suggest a merge, I don't see what it would accomplish in this case. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Wilhelm - The topic itself unable to meet SIGCOV and unable to demonstrate notability of a company. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2025 (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.

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spinny (company)

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at Spinny. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for bringing this article to AfD. I believe the subject may now meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It's possible that when earlier versions or submissions were reviewed, such coverage was not yet available, but recent searches (including on Google) show more in-depth and reliable sources. I support the AfD process in this case so that the wider community can evaluate whether the subject meets the notability criteria. I appreciate that this nomination was made in good faith. Afstromen (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen could you specify which sources you mean? Mrfoogles (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes India, Economic Times, Live Mint, Moneycontrol, Entrepreneur Afstromen (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided here are not reliable; they all appear to be promotional material from the same date and on the same topics.1) Spinny raises $283 million [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]2)Spinny has fired about 300 employees[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]3)Spinny opens 1,000 acre park [36][37][38][39][40] SachinSwami (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and what about Forbes India and Entrepreneur source? Afstromen (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [41] Afstromen (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[42], [43] Afstromen (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No change between same date and same topic.4)Spinny raises $65 million[44][45][46] SachinSwami (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SachinSwami I am agree with your point but can you share your review on Forbes India, Entrepreneur and other sources i mentioned in this discussion. Also [47][48]

[49] Afstromen (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are from the same date and same topic.5)Spinny Acquires Scouto[50][51][52][53][54][55] SachinSwami (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are focusing mainly on the sources that were published on the same date, but you are ignoring other reliable and high-quality sources. Afstromen (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This company is highly suspicious for COI and it looks like Covert advertisement. Check the previous deletion history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinny B-Factor 16:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India.Afstromen (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the sources are from the same date and on the same topic, appearing entirely promotional.*:SachinSwami (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user seems very interested in this page; I suspect a conflict of interest (COI). SachinSwami (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am interested in discussing the sources. and I have nothing to do with COI. Afstromen (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth discussing promotional sources? 38 sources were shown, all appearing like advertisements. I can provide many more sources from the same date and same topic. SachinSwami (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify a few things, and after this I’ll leave it here.

[56] – This is a detailed piece that gives significant coverage to the company. It wasn’t published on the same date as the others, so I’m not sure why it's being grouped that way. It clearly supports notability under GNG.

[57] – This is from India Today, which is both reliable and independent.

[58] – An exclusive from Forbes India should count as independent and non-trivial coverage.

[59] – This is another solid source from Deccan Chronicle that adds to the overall picture. Afstromen (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the vote casting and conflict of interest matter, I saw substantial publicity regarding the corporation. Fulfill the conditions outlined in WP:NCORP. I found [60], [61], [62] and [63] AndySailz (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The analysis of the provided sources is as follow: 1) WP:FORBES states that "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff with editorial oversight and are generally reliable... Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight and is generally unreliable." 2 The Financial Express article focuses heavily on Spin's success and positive aspects. Due to its promotional tone, it cannot be considered fully neutral. 3 ) India Today is considered reliable, but this article also emphasizes Spinny's positive aspects (such as customer-centric approach and use of technology) without shedding much light on the company’s challenges or shortcomings. It lacks a thorough evaluation of Spin's true situation, making the article appear one-sided. The source does not meet the criteria of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RS. SachinSwami (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your opinion clear, and I believe it's now fair to allow other editors the opportunity to contribute their views as well. I would also like to note that the Forbes article cited is bylined by a named journalist, which adds to its reliability under Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Additionally, the Deccan Chronicle article provides coverage about the company. Let's continue this discussion constructively and collaboratively, following Wikipedia's guidelines. Afstromen (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user is welcome to evaluate sources presented by other votes. This is a discussion, not a vote count. Please do not attempt to stifle their comments. The fact is that the majority of the sources are press-driven and come from the company, either paid for through non-disclosed ads or churnalism (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). --CNMall41 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that many sources are kind of press-driven. But why you aren't not pointing good article. Both Forbes India articles are reliable, staff-written pieces with bylined journalists. They offer in-depth, independent coverage of Spinny’s background and business model, meeting the criteria for notability under the General Notability Guideline (GNG). Also the articles from The Financial Express and Deccan Chronicle that are with bylined journalists name and offer coverage about the company. These publications meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards for news sources when written by named journalists. Also i found two Hindi sources [64], [65]. I am discussing this only because you are ignoring good sources. Afstromen (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. Please stop. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I won’t say anything further.Afstromen (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two Hindi sources do not make the subject notable since the first one focuses significantly on its founder and the second fails SIGCOV (?). ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 17:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All but one source is either unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:ORGTRIV (acquisitions, hiring/firing, capital raises, new location openings) that do not count as WP:SIGCOV. With insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH this article fails WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject does not meet the notability guidelines, shown by SachinSwami's analysis of the sources provided. A search gives us some routine announcements and paid news with a promotional tone (WP:NEWSORGINDIA) in addition to some that fail to meet the SIGCOV. And when deleting, it should be salted to prevent further recreation against existing consensus. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 17:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is totally unnecessary in my point of view. The company has significant coverage in forbes and entrepreneur.com.14.142.146.94 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Source	Publisher & Reliability	Coverage Type	Depth of Company Details	Editorial Independence	Strength for Wikipedia Notability	Notes
Forbes India (Rearview Mirror, 2020)	Forbes India — highly reputable business magazine	In-depth company profile, founder story, growth narrative	Very high — detailed history, challenges, strategy	Yes	✔️ Very strong	Excellent for early company history and founder insights; authored, independent feature
Forbes India (Acquisition, 2023)	Forbes India — highly reputable business magazine	Business milestone coverage, acquisition, financial scale	High — recent company growth and market impact	Yes	✔️ Very strong	Exclusive coverage of Spinny's acquisition of Truebil, demonstrating significant industry impact and growth
Economic Times Hindi (Niraj Singh story)	Economic Times Hindi — reputable regional publication	Founder interview and company journey	High — detailed founder insights and growth	Yes	✔️ Strong	Valuable regional-language coverage with deep founder and company details
ET Prime	Economic Times Prime — premium business analysis platform	Market context, business model, competition	Moderate — business analysis, less company history	Yes	✔️ Moderate-Strong	Useful for market positioning and competitive context
VCCircle	VCCircle — respected startup and VC news site	Funding updates, financial milestones, company history	Moderate — combines financial info with company background	Yes	✔️ Moderate	Good for financial verification plus some company history details
Moneycontrol	Moneycontrol — reputed financial news portal	Funding rounds, valuation, company background	Moderate	Yes	✔️ Moderate	Includes exclusive reports on funding talks and valuation milestones
Livemint (Funding & Growth Articles)	Livemint — established business news outlet	Funding, investor details, company history, growth strategy	Moderate to High	Yes	✔️ Moderate-Strong	Provides both financial info and detailed company history and growth context; includes exclusive funding round coverage
Entrepreneur India	Entrepreneur India — established entrepreneurship magazine	Authored in-depth feature on business model and success	Moderate to High	Yes	✔️ Moderate-Strong	Reliable authored profile useful for demonstrating notability

103.46.200.95 (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely rubbish assessment. Fobres India and Entrepreneur India are NOT Forbes and Entrepreneur. Quack quack! --CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this point. Cannot find references meeting WP:ORGCRIT and no one has brought forth anything to the contrary. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonsense source assessment. These are WP:ORGTRIV or WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews; furthermore, Forbes India and Entrepreneur India are not reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grok's opinion on the issue

Keep Look, the company’s clearly been getting decent media coverage not just from Forbes and Entrepreneur, but from a bunch of other sources too. Everyone keeps getting hung up on Forbes and Entrepreneur India like they’re the only game in town.

For Forbes, the article doesn’t seem like paid content — it looks legit, editorial, and actually covers the company in a meaningful way. As for Entrepreneur India, yeah, there’s been some back-and-forth about its reliability, but no consensus doesn’t mean “not reliable.” It just means editors haven’t fully agreed. So let’s not throw it out without a solid reason. Also, it’s not like getting featured in these places is a walk in the park, it’s still a sign the company’s doing something notable. Plus, we’ve got other coverage too. Someone even put together a comparison table of sources, which helps show this isn't just fluff or PR spam.Collegeboy12 (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more experienced, organic input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to Draft:Spinny - current sourcing doesn't contain enough depth of coverage for a standalone article. I agree with Dclemens1971 that this Forbes India source is decent enough, and I'd also say that a combination of this Economic Times source corroborated by Reuters is OK too - there needs to be more sources like that for an article. I suggest draftify as an alternative to deletion and to the correct title, with a restriction, if possible, that any future publication go through the articles for creation process to avoid COI concerns. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying would not work as no amount of cleanup will make this notable. Movign to draft will simply cause the SPAs and COI editors to move it right back, regardless of the AfC restriction. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the Reuters piece is WP:ORGTRIV covering, as it does, a funding round/valuation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It has received significant coverage from many well-known independent sources, including Forbes India (https://www.forbesindia.com/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/rearview-mirror-lost-alignment-and-a-leap-of-faith-how-spinny-emerged-as-a-dark-horse/85135/1), Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/markets/funds/indian-used-car-platform-spinny-valued-18-bln-new-funding-round-2021-12-07/), The Economic Times (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/spinny-turns-unicorn-after-raising-285-million-from-adq-tiger-global-and-others/articleshow/87890974.cms?from=mdr), Business Today (https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/corporate/story/tiger-global-in-talks-to-invest-100-million-in-used-car-retailer-spinny-298696-2021-06-15), Moneycontrol (https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/startup/exclusive-tiger-in-talks-to-back-spinny-valuation-zooms-to-800-million-7034641.html), Financial Express (https://www.financialexpress.com/business/express-mobility-online-transaction-makes-up-for-48-of-used-car-sales-for-spinny-2923245/), Livemint (https://www.livemint.com/Companies/QTrlHrh5KPspHcssiwizRL/Spinny-in-talks-to-raise-up-to-15-million.html), Entrepreneur India (https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/news-and-trends/spinning-success-in-the-used-car-business/414905), and others.

These sources provide detailed information about Spinny, its funding rounds, business model, growth trajectory, and its position as a unicorn startup valued at $1.8 billion. This coverage goes well beyond basic press releases or trivial mentions. Similar companies like CARS24 and CarDekho have had comparable coverage and were kept in their AfDs. Spinny should be treated consistently with this precedent.Collegeboy12 (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user registered 3 days ago and has made a total of 7 edits, all of which are in AFD (Articles for Deletion). Having extensive Wikipedia experience and directly participating in AFD suggests significant involvement. Out of the 38 sources provided, these are the ones being referenced. SachinSwami (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find independent evidence that this company is notable in Wikipedia's norms. Numerous citations from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. [66], [67], [68], [69]. I find In-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This brigade of relatively new accounts arguing "Keep" is frankly unconvincing and suggestive of an off-wiki canvassing or UPE attempt. And the sources you cited were all already discussed and dismissed abvoe. I trust that the closing admin will see through this attempt and evaluate the consensus the actual Wikipedia community has come to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains sufficient independent in-depth content and meets NCORP criteria after excluding the quotes from execs and information provided by the company. The company is also profiled in analyst report from Frost and Sullivan here (paywalled). HighKing⁺⁺ 13:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Economic Times article is detailed, covering Spinny’s business strategies, market share, and competitor comparisons. It includes data, expert opinions, and industry trends, making it seem complete and reliable, but there are questions about The Times Group’s reporting. With your 19 years of experience, you’d know how much to trust it.

researchandmarkets.com provides market research reports, data, and analysis, mainly for industries, businesses, and professionals. But how notable is it on Wikipedia? Is it significant? Has it been discussed before? Its reliability is currently unclear. Also, if you could comment on salted pages and pages with suspected COI, it would help me comment in AFD discussions in the future. SachinSwami (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm aware of how some newspapers provide "marketing" articles or "puff profiles" masquerading as news - in my view, that isn't one of them which is why I've mentioned it. I'd like to think that I've participated at enough NCORP-related AfD's to tell the difference. As to the research report, the researchers are Frost and Sullivan and they are reputable. As to the other matters, recreating a "salted" article without reference to the deleting/salting admin should normally result in action taken against the recreating editor but given the delete was in 2022 and the references used to establish notability were not in existence then, I don't think this will lead anywhere especially if the article is not promotional in nature and follows the guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Spinny was not in fact profiled by Frost & Sullivan. The company was mentioned along with others in context of its used car report. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be some discussion surrounding the Frost and Sullivan report, and as that source was introduced recently, more time to evaluate it may be helpful. Of course, this is not intended to limit discussion should editors find other sources that displace it from the best WP:THREE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The RS Noticeboard considers LiveMint reliable (see [[70]]. However, the other cited articles are mostly WP:ORGTRIV. Unfortunately, there's not enough here to meet WP:CORPDEPTH.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DesiMoore I'm curious as to our views on the two references I cited above. Neither are ORGTRIV, both are CORPDEPTH. In particular, analyst reports on the Indian used car market including analysis on Spinny's marketshare and performance are a gold standard? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, I agree that the Economic Times article provides WP:CORPDEPTH, but the Frost & Sullivan report only contains a trivial mention. DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run of the mill used car sale website (I loathe that the 'pre-owned vehicle' euphemism has moved into private party sales) and all of the Forbes and NEWSORGINDIA sources will not convince me otherwise. Nathannah • 📮 18:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center

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

Article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and New York. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic seems notable to me. Promotional content can be reduced. Passes GNG. AndySailz (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had some press in 2014 which seems to be around its launch, but nothing since that time that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Huffington Post is a contributor piece and the rest is mentions our routine coverage which does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CNMall41 - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR - chit-chatty blog, not an encyclopedia article, with insider information that could only be accessed through interviews or original sources. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2025 (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⁺⁺ 20:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAFU (company)

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. I find it rather concerning that an article like this was accepted in AfC. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, this nomination borders on the frivolous. CNBC? Check. Arabian Business? Check. The National;Emirates 24/7; Khaleej Times all national newspapers? Check. It's not even WP:BEFORE, it's staring you in the face, right there. The article is scrappy, but deletion as eny fule no, is not cleanup. The company is notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your perspective and it has already been discussed at RS Noticeboard. Kindly refrain from continuing this line of argument in a condescending tone, as it may be perceived as disruptive. Charlie (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus in that discussion, in which I note I was an enthusiastic participant, to deprecate UAE media or to treat them as generally unreliable. My line of argument, which I will feel perfectly free to continue to pursue, is that these are all RS, we clearly and unarguably pass WP:GNG and this nomination is, in that case, incorrect. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV, reliable secondary sources. ORG has won awards, boosting notability. As Alexander above has previously mentioned, the sources are reliable and secondary. jolielover♥talk 06:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, this is failed to meet WP:NCORP. Unable to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The references are just passing mentions and announcements by the company. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs copy editing and some review but it definitely should not be deleted. It has substantial content. However I do feel it is a bit promotional in nature.

— 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. (asked to comment by OP via email) I think there is enough material to make it work, including a couple of full-length articles about what it does. That is, there is definitely enough SIGCOV to let it stay (UAE sources are not automatically bad just because they work in UAE - go to the reliable sources noticeboard if you believe that they are problematic). But in its current iteration, the article is crap. It's apparently an energy startup but it's unclear what its products are, what's so special about the company, what its business model is. The partnerships and deals border on routine coverage, and it's unclear what their significance is. Just listing all the partnerships is not good enough and I guess it's a guised attempt at self-promotion: "look, we have deals with the government of Dubai and companies as far away as Quebec!" That's not what a company article should look like. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki Thank you for your helpful thoughts. It will help others vote better. Charlie (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Szmenderowiecki that the current sources seem very WP:CORPROUTINE. I may conduct a BEFORE if I have the time to assess any sources not yet present against ORGCRIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of available sources, especially in light of WP:NCORP, would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 8 June 2025 (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⁺⁺ 20:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asphales

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

Fails to establish notability under WP:GNG; lacks substantial independent, reliable secondary sources covering the subject beyond minimal, trivial mentions AndesExplorer (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Belgium. AndesExplorer (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Wikipedia Library includes access to De Standaard, a major Belgian newspaper. A quick search turns up 16 hits for articles containing "Asphales" and 15 hits for "Fortales" (Asphales' current name).--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see some sources truly exist, but I cannot access them. Taking into account the age of the company it very likely is underreferenced and looks not notable, but that is not a case. Norlk (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd love to see sources (even ones that apparently can't be accessed by some editors) but I cannot locate anything that meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companies proposed deletions

Arab American Vehicles (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
East Mediterranean Gas Company (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Egyptalum (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
eSpace (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Herrawi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Ibrachy & Dermarkar (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Mo'men (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Olympic Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Seoudi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Shotmed Paper Industries (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Corona (confectioner) (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Starworld (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Bahgat Group (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)