[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,510,241 edits
Line 7: Line 7:
==Companies deletion==
==Companies deletion==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CYSNERGY}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cannon_Trading_Company,_Inc.}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cannon_Trading_Company,_Inc.}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PensionBee}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PensionBee}}

Revision as of 18:47, 14 September 2024

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.


Purge page cache watch


Companies deletion

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CYSNERGY

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

A longstanding WP:SPA article about a company which seems to have operated from 2011 to around 2020. An article in the Spanish Wikipedia was recently deleted ("Entre S/REL y promocional + empresa desaparecida"). There are claims within the article, but mainly supported by links to generic websites, and it seems unlikely that a methodology dating from 2000 can indicate notability for a firm founded in 2011. A brief interview with the company founder can be found (enerTIC, 4 December 2015), but I don't see that or anything else that I can identify as sufficient to demonstrate that this company attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon Trading Company, Inc.

Cannon Trading Company, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:COMPANY. No good sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 18:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PensionBee

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

Unlikely to meet NCORP; no reliable sources The editing spirit (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orange sticker, the mentioned sources are focused on announcing the planned expansion, with minimal independent analysis or critical evaluation of PensionBee's business model, market position, orwhatever. Therefore they lack the depth required for establishing the company's notability --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where those standards appear in WP:SIRS? Both the Guardian and FT articles are by staff writers/editors. Orange sticker (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Cigarette Company

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

cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here. In addition, the article has not been updated for a long time Moarnighar (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chinese Tobacco Giant Enters Zim Market [4]
  • Up in smoke: Cigarette company Pacific enters business rescue after ZIMRA hits it with a US$19m tax bill and garnishes bank accounts [5]
  • Pacific Cigarette Speaks Out on Controversial Business Issues [6] <-- not currently in article
  • Zimbabwe: China Ready to Seal Investment Deals [7] (paywall, another version here)
Oblivy (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gufic Biosciences Ltd

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

The topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as it lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable news sources. Moarnighar (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:SK#2, making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any.do

AfDs for this article:
Any.do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Moarnighar (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Securities

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

The topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards under WP, as it lacks sufficient coverage by reliable, independent news sources. More independent media references are needed to establish notability beyond promotional content. Moarnighar (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it covers a notable state-owned corporation that plays a significant role in the distribution of electricity in Andhra Pradesh, contributing to public infrastructure and services.--Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. It literally is self-contradictory. There’s a Ref bomb about sponsorship of an annual cultural event. There’s a discussion about regular stock market sales. Then it says it’s a Halal investor. From my understanding of that market from an old law school chum, that’s not allowed; you can’t hold both Halal and ordinary investments. Then there’s a bizarre allegation that it’s not a stock brokerage, but rather a governmental entity. I’ve written extensively on the topic of energy law, and my conclusion is that This is nonsense. If I’m wrong, please clarify it on this page and in the article. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Insurance

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

Non-notable business, promotional. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freund Publishing House

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

Article without notoriety or readable encyclopedic context Alon9393 (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 MSP

The 20 MSP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a company only notable for their acquisitions, meaning it does not pass WP:NCORP. Most of the sources listed only give the company a passing mention, (one sentence about a company they acquired) and a further search hasn't turned up anything more than the kind of coverage already listed in the article. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. The article has changed substantially since I nominated it for deletion. Thank you User:Guliolopez for all the research! Brandon (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daon, Inc.

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Sources are all trivial mentions of the company. Brandon (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I haven't yet completed a full WP:BEFORE (to establish whether there are other/independent/reliable sources "out there" which can establish notability and support the text). But, per nom, the sources within the article are far from ideal. Being either trivial passing mentions (where the industry news coverage is substantially about something else and the subject org is barely mentioned in passing). Or sources which are far from independent (company press releases, promotional webpages from partner companies, interviews with the company CEO, etc). To establish notability of this (250 person? 11 million turnover?) company... Guliolopez (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have now undertaken a more complete WP:BEFORE. And have identified and added more than a few examples of independent, reliable and verifiable news sources. Including the Irish Times, Irish Independent and New York Times. The latter two dealing with the 2006 appointment of Tom Ridge and sales wins (around the same time) in US airport security use cases. While, at time of nom, the article was almost entirely based on primary sources, press releases and ROTM business news coverage, that is no longer the case. Guliolopez (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M2SYS Technology

AfDs for this article:
M2SYS Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, every source in the article is an example of WP:ORGTRIV. Brandon (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SaadiCorp

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

This is an odd one. The article was declined twice at draft, as it was sourced almost entirely by primary sources. Up until July, the article creator described the company as "a financial services firm headquartered in Lahore, Pakistan. The company was founded in late 2019 by Muhammad Salman Saadi, a finance professional." Their website at that point said the same, up until 16 June, at which point it appears to have gone offline.

On 5 September, article creator rewrote the article, now describing it as: "a research institute based in Lahore, Pakistan, that specialises in leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to drive advancements in healthcare research", quite a remarkable pivot, and moved the article to main space as Saadi Corporation Limited. The chairman from the original article is now listed as the CEO. I can find nothing on the company in reliable sources, just social media, and their website is still down. The research paper they submitted to Oncogenesis appears to be sitting in the submission queue, as I can find no trace of it elsewhere online, and nothing to show that this meets WP:CORP. Wikishovel (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sandstone Varied Productions

AfDs for this article:
Red Sandstone Varied Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article, and therefore fails WP:NCORP. Article was created in 2013 by a user named Yvonne Coughlan, who also happens to be the founder of the company. CycloneYoris talk! 06:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a notable organisation. WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH are not met. By some distance. This is such a clear cut case that I am genuinely intrigued by the sole "weak keep" recommendation from the previous AfD (and not surprised to see that it came from a blocked/banner editor). In a search within available Irish news sources, for example, the Irish Independent stable of national/regional papers contains ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (not even a single trivial passing mention). Same for Irish Times (zero results), RTÉ.ie (zero results), thejournal.ie (nothing - not a sausage), etc. In the Irish Examiner we find just THREE trivial passing mentions. Where barely the name of the org is mentioned. And no depth of coverage (about the org) at all. In terms of the links in the article itself, if one of the company's productions was reviewed in the Evening Echo in 2007 the production company itself was not seemingly named in that review. Of the other two links/sources within the article, one doesn't appear to mention the production company - except by the "RSVP" abbreviation (which could, for all we know, be a different production company or anything). And the other is another barely trivial passing mention. It is also hard to overlook that this article was clearly created by an SPA/COI editor with an overtly promotional intent. Mine is a firm DELETE recommendation... Guliolopez (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sourcing has been found to be of insufficient depth and independence Star Mississippi 17:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityScorecard

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

Article recreated recently after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SecurityScorecard, notability of the company has not meaningfully changed since.

The new version of the article does have more references, however there is still not significant coverage of the company. The Bloomberg article is the most persuasive, however a company closing one significant deal does not clear the WP:NCORP bar. The remaining mentions are all trivial. Brandon (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
"Canada Will Use Letter Grades to Assess Companies' Cyber Resilience". Bloomberg.com. 2024-01-11.
 Yes Yes Yes
Yes No No Yes
Yes Yes No WP:ORGTRIV: capital transaction Yes
Yes Yes No WP:ORGTRIV: capital transaction Yes
Yes No No Trivial mention of SecureScorecard as an example of a streaming data pipeline Yes
Yes Yes No Yes
Maundrill, Beth (2023-12-01). "How TUI Group Strengthened its Third-Party Risk Management". Infosecurity Magazine.
 Yes No No No Customer testimonial
Pasternack, Alex (March 3, 2023). "10 Most Innovative Companies in Security of 2023". Fast Company.
 Yes Yes No WP:ORGTRIV: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" Yes
Gallagher, Sean (2015-09-11). "MIT ranks high in bad security at major universities". Ars Technica.
 Yes Yes No Article is about the security posture of MIT, no significant coverage of the company itself Yes
Yes Yes No Article is about the security posture of the US government, no significant coverage of the company itself Yes
Delete per nom. OhHaiMark (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bloomberg, Fastcompany, Atstechnica, and CyberExpress together are good enough for me. Better Nuncio (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources almost exclusively only provide trivial coverage of the company, I've added a source assessment table to demonstrate this. For example, the Fast Company article is a textbook example of WP:ORGTRIV: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists." Brandon (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as article's AfC reviewer. I am withdrawing my decision, and keeping this open to others' input. While I originally thought this might have been a pretty good article, I understand the other viewpoints. I give partial support to remove this article per WP:ORGTRIV, which I think is a viable reason. OnlyNanotalk 12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - The company is covered in tons of sources and even several pages of books if you search on Google. The venture beat articles look like funding notices but the articles are quite in depth and I think Bloomberg along with plenty of sources online make this a very notable company. SunnyScion (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I disagree with the nominator's assessment of the Bloomberg and Fast Company sources. Both provide WP:SIGCOV of the company. The Fast Company source is a list, but it's not an ORGTRIV-excluded list; it includes several paragraphs of discussion about the company. I'm not sure an adequate WP:BEFORE search was done, either, as there are many SIGCOV sources not included in the article; see Bloomberg BusinessWeek, CFO magazine, eWeek, and Risk Management magazine. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see more than enough sources, several of which were highlighted in the table. Bloomberg is pretty significant coverage, at least to me. SirMemeGod  21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ORGTRIV says inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, not inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, but it'll be OK if the listicle has a bit of text about the company,. Literally every single listicle will have enough content by that metric, because they will all introduce each of the subjects with a paragraph or two of waffle. What is lacking, is any actual evaluation or analysis, any secondary content beyond the routine, run-of-the-mill "about us" text that is included in literally every single other listicle of dozens of companies. As for the other Bloomberg article, I cannot positively identify which one is referred to since there is no bibliographic information given and the link used is a session link that is useless unless we're on the same computer (and has no doubt expired regardless) but the only other Bloomberg article I could find in Business Source Complete or Business Source Ultimate is AN 150764891, also available from Yahoo, or Bloomberg directly (Sebenius, Alyza (8 June 2021). "JBS Hackers Took Data From Australia and Brazil, Researcher Says". Bloomberg.com.). Said article is one of those where the company in question comments on a few things, there is virtually no content about the company itself. It does not in any way even approach ORGDEPTH, there is no need to ask about ORGIND. As for the WP:TRADES articles mentioned, there is zero explaination why they overcome the presumption against independence. An example of the coverage in eWeek Kerner, Sean Michael (11 February 2016). "SecurityScorecard Detects, Rates Security of Third-Party Suppliers". eWeek. TechnologyAdvice, LLC. ISSN 1530-6283 – via EBSCO, AN 112958089., which is the exact type of WP:SPIP that we have WP:TRADES exclude. All in all, I'm not sure it's really appropriate to cast stones about anbody else's BEFORE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used Ebsco permalinks so they should work if logged in via the Wikipedia Library, but here are the references if you want to look them up:
    • "A Heightened State Of Security." By: Chapman, Lizette, Bloomberg Businessweek, 00077135, 3/13/2017, Issue 4514
    • "Keeping Score". By: Katz, David M. CFO. Apr2017, Vol. 33 Issue 3, p29-30. 2p.
    • "Cyber Scorekeepers". By: Banham, Russ. Risk Management. Nov2017, Vol. 64 Issue 10, p26-29. 3p.
    • You found the eWeek article. eWeek is not a WP:TRADES publication, it's a more general business technology publication (a la Infoworld or Wired). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very odd. Are you sure you are getting the permalinks by clicking the "Permalink" button? Because the link it generates should always include the accession number with the proxy login, for example, either https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=121701140&site=eds-live&scope=site or https://search-ebscohost-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=121701140&site=eds-live&scope=site. The link would not work otherwise, and if EBSCO is generating an invalid link that should probably be reported. Also, eWeek is absolutely a trade magazine owned by a marketing company, I'm really not sure what to say about that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The subject has tons of sources that do not appear in the reference list. I'm certain there is enough material to establish notability. I suggest keeping and improving this article.DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Plenty of their rankings that get coverage, there isn't anything about the company that isn't a PR item that I see in my search. The table above/below my comment seems to sum up the sources. We just don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There appears to be some fundamental misunderstanding as to what sources we require to ascertain notability of companies/organizations. Because the topic is a company, the appropriate guidelines are GNG/WP:NCORP which 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. None of the Keep !voters have identified the parts of the sources which are in-depth "Independent Content". I won't repeat the discussion of sources but, just by way of examples, some editors saying meets the criteria. No, here's why. That Bloomburg article only repeats this Press Release from the company on the same day - that isn't "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. Or others mention the Bloomberg Businessweek article "A Heightened State of Security" from 2017. Again, no. Leaving aside the information directly attributed to the co-founder, we're left with a single (generic description) sentence which clearly falls short of the requirement for in-depth content. HighKing++ 11:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wizeline

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. All references are press releases and "top 10 companies" listings. Google News search returns no reliable secondary sources that establish notability. Dan • ✉ 15:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

System Technology-i Co, Ltd

System Technology-i Co, Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company which doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP / WP:SIGCOV. It cites 19 sources but if you look at them, none seem to be independent reliable sources about this company. The first is an article about 100 companies doing exhibits at an event in Malaysia, just a passing mention. References 2-4 are financial reports (first party primary sources). Reference 5 is the company's defunct linkedin, references 7 and 9 are websites of the company's products. References 13 to 19 are directory listings on a business partner's website. The Yahoo article is actually a press release. That leaves only the (deleted) PDFs of articles supposedly from Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun. I can't track down the articles at this time, but with titles like "System Technology-i and Delivering training over iPad device" they sound like more press releases.

Admittedly there's a language barrier, and the company is apparently no longer in business. But none of the sources currently cited are anywhere close to being the kind of coverage we'd need to see to establish notability. Here2rewrite (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RadioactiveGiant

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The problem appears to be with WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, since there was only trivial coverage in virtually every source I found. The sources already in the article are IMDB or trivial announcements such as a business agreement or the opening of a studio. Tagged for notability since 2011. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurveySparrow

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

I did a WP:BEFORE and did not find evidence that this company meets WP:NCORP. Mostly sponsored content/press releases/interviews. I'm not seeing any independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BookBrowse

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

No WP:SIGCOV of this book review site; references are mostly mentions; awards don't appear to be particularly notable either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC. I also found a decent amount of Newspapers.com coverage, without going too in depth here are some of the sources I found [16] [17] [18] [19]. Also some coverage in these books [20]. Probably more if I looked harder, there's definitely more sigcov in the sea of mentions but I think this is enough for me to vote keep PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC and PARAKANYAA. Οἶδα (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panam (brand)

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

Current state of sourcing and WP Before doesn't help to establish notability per WP ORG or NCORP. Promotion only J. P. Fridrich (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not passing. San Diego Union Tribune , Telediario Mazatlan Post , Austria, Xóchitl. 2018. “Él Hizo ‘Cool’ a Los Tenis Ochenteros.” Entrepreneur Mexico 26 (10): 52–56. (4 pages) (Via EBSCO). A brief result via Google books refers to Panam as "hugely popular the '80s, though their ubiquity dropped off after..." The company was founded in 1962. Look offline and online via Google Mexico. Pinging the editor who created this article, LeDeroider, as they have expertise in this area -- 26 sneaker/shoe articles, two of which have been deleted -- and can likely add more references. JSFarman (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduja Tech

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

Does not meet NCORP, no reliable sources; superficial and WP Trivial media coverage only J. P. Fridrich (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Gold

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

Non-notable forex broker. Coverage is mostly paid/PR-based. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CalDigit

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

Does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for companies. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Power sector of Andhra Pradesh. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Single ref is effectively WP:OR. scope_creepTalk 06:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It states here: [21]] that the electricity generators were deregulated in 1999. The main monolithic supplier APSEB was split into a grid supplier and the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited. The regional generator were split off from this organisation into regional supplier. They are all owned by Andhra Pradesh government. Even though they are seperate companies, they can be one article, because all companies are owned by one entity. scope_creepTalk 16:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    10s of companies are owned by Andhra Pradesh state government, it is still unfair and doesn't make sense to merge, just because they are owned by the same party. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, we need more editors with knowledge of electric grids in India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Power sector of Andhra Pradesh. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited

Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Single ref is effectively WP:OR. No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 06:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will go through your new references to check them. scope_creepTalk 19:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It states here: [22]] that the electricity generators were deregulated in 1999. The main monolithic supplier APSEB was split into a grid supplier and the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited. The regional generator were split off from this organisation into regional supplier. They are all owned by Andhra Pradesh government. Even though they are seperate companies, they can be one article, because all companies are owned by one entity. scope_creepTalk 16:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    10s of companies are owned by Andhra Pradesh state government, it is still unfair and doesn't make sense to merge, just because they are owned by the same party. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same comment as the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Power sector of Andhra Pradesh. Star Mississippi 00:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 06:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikizoomer: If you don't stop WP:BLUDGEONing every comment that made has been made on this, I will take you to WP:ANI. scope_creepTalk 16:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears like a personal attack, accusing other users of doing something that they are not and within accordance with Wikipedia policies is personal attack. I can take you to WP:ANI and instead of threatening, you can directly take it there. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep FYI... Thewikizoomer is a politically exposed editor, presumably hired or paid by the current Government of Andhra Pradesh. Their edit history is quite openly visible. It looks like taking the ANI route is the only viable option. Charlie (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It states here: [23] that the electricity generators were deregulated in 1999. The main monolithic supplier APSEB was split into a grid supplier and the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited. The regional generator were split off from this organisation into regional supplier. They are all owned by Andhra Pradesh government. Even though they are seperate companies, they can be one article, because all companies are owned by one entity. scope_creepTalk 16:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    10s of companies are owned by Andhra Pradesh state government, it is still unfair and doesn't make sense to merge, just because they are owned by the same party. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same comment as the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crabtree Brewing Co.

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

Fails WP:CORP. The first source is a blog. 2nd is not sigcov and third is very local coverage as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Z Moving

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYO Boya

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

I could only find one really good cite: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/bir-boya-markasinin-dogus-oykusu-24664197 Chidgk1 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Films

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

There are seemingly notable productions associated with them, but I couldn't find sources to evidence it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, did you try searching anything in the Japanese language? I don't know the company but despite the poor sourcing, it appears to be notable if the article is correct Andre🚐 20:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, more opinions needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: And improve with existing sources, most of them in Jp, some on the corresponding JaWP article. Has a search in Jp been performed? If so, what is the issue? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the improvements. It should also be noted that, due to the time period in which the company operated, and due to the lack of contemporary (to that time) Japanese magazines, newspapers, and other possible references being available online, it is likely there are many references that are not accessible to anyone outside of Japan, and those references would even be difficult to find within Japan outside of some specialized libraries or buried in a used book store. Given the high profile of many of their works (especially the three Takahashi series), it's extremely likely those sources exist despite our being unable to access them from 10,000 miles away. I'm still looking for more, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve with JP sources. Andre🚐 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Cardiac Centre

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

Bringing this here for discussion as it was moved out of AfC, but I don't think it meets N:ORG. The coverage is non neutral (beacon, transformative) which reads like pay to play vs. independent coverage required of ORGCRIT. Aware of systemic bias, but not sure this cardiac centre is notable. Star Mississippi 12:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/national-cardiac-centre-launches-affordable-cardiovascular-risk-assessment-service-to-benefit-low-income-families/ 2.https://www.nepalhealthpress.com/noncommunicable-diseases/7173/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2JoWE0u47fWvjDOS_NCaQUH9cRpRboxQ4nBWIApaKRDKpm5MGwlcG_Iuw_aem_Ks8go2xuvaxrKVrNTKrgLg 3. https://www.healthaawaj.com/news/50528/ --Santoshsah4 (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This in MyRepublica is a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
  • This in Nepal Health Press is another company announcement, also fails ORGIND
  • This from Nepal Health Press appears to be a report on what happened at the NCC on World Health Day including presentations by cardiologists. It doesn't provide any in-depth information on the NCC, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This from gorkhapatraonline tells the story of an anonymous person who developed symptoms of heart disease and eventually contacted the NCC. It is clearly a promotional piece to raise awareness. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This next in MyRepublica is another story of an anonymous person's treatment at the NCC and is also, clearly, a promotional piece to raise awareness, also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This next in Nepal Health Press is another "awareness" promotional piece showcasing the free diagnosis and advice provided in rural communities. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This in HealthPati also forms part of the promotional activities of the company, informing people on what to due if someone collapses due to a heart attack. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
WP is not a platform for promotion or advocating on subjects no matter how worthy. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 11:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbeat Films

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

Not a notable film studio, as its IMDb entry clearly shows. Tellingly, none of the cited sources even mention the studio. Additionally, notability is not inherited from films that the studio happened to be involved in. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : Per nominator's reason. Came across the page and had to make my own find out. The notable movies never claimed in any reliable source that Deadbeat Films was their movie studio production. Maybe reason why it was not even listed on the IMDB platform. So many unreliable source which also fails WP:GNG of the subject article.--Gabriel (……?) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. As per my other comment, I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. It's just smaller than what we're used to and it's in England. I'm not entirely sure where you live, but I definitely think it's more Indie British than anything Well Known American. I've just been hired on, and I believe part of my job is to freshen up and work on the various Wikipedia pages for the studio, its films, and its employees. Another intern started what I'm working on right now. It's a bunch of busy people on board and just needs its due time to cook in the oven. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Wikipedia they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one that created the initial Wikipedia article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Wikipedia. I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Wikipedia page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources fail to demonstrate the notability of the studio. The Guardian source is a film review, not a company profile, and doesn't mention "Deadbeat Films" anywhere. As I stated in the AfD nomination, the studio doesn't gain notability from its people or products. Unless I'm mistaken, the LLB source looks like a press release. And the film website is, similarly, not an independent source. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the note of communication with Brook himself: I'm in America and he is in England, so the time zones have a large gap in between them. We are doing our best to communicate in a timely manner despite this hurdle. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have one COI editor who I think we can view as an unbolded Keep, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Sleep

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

Clearly a soft "infomercial" on WP that is not notable. Normchou 💬 20:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The topic is the company - the product reviews don't provide any in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. I'd also add that both those websites earn commissions from clicking on links, so not as independent as you might think at first, the websites are motivated to promote both the reviews and the click-thru traffic. HighKing++ 11:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Which sources help establish WP:NCORP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should probably start that topic at RSN I keep on not getting around to, but at present, I am still disinclined to accept affiliate marketing as satisfying ORGIND, and would therefore also recommend against an article on any of the products of this company, not having found any references meeting the criteria for those. Similarly, I could not find any qualifying coverage for the company itself, so I will have to go with delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke Resources

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs mixes the mine and the corp which are not one entity. Corp references are routine business news, funding and so. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creepTalk 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 [25]
Ref 2 [26] This is a routine standard annoucement of partnership that fails WP:ORGTRIV.
Ref 3 [27] This is routine information of sale of resources from Peabody to Pembroke. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 4 [28]
Ref 5 [29] This is a press-release.It is not independent.
Ref 6 [30] "Tudor told Reuters in an interview." It fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 7 [31] Another interview. It fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 8 [32] "Pembroke Resources to build coal mine in Bowen Basin". Comes from the press-release as the above.
Ref 9 [33]

Ref 4 and 9 but it is same insider sources can reveal. All these are standard notices, press-releases, routine annoucements of funds. All of them fails WP:SIRS in one way or another. scope_creepTalk 06:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My main point is that all these sources are reputable in Australia, they a=obviously won't market or promote the company by writing excessive details about the subject. They only write and publish facts that is the case with every reliable source. If this is the case then it weakens the existence of other associated pages as well, and some of the pages related mines and their parent companies don't even have that amount of press. Standard notices, funds news, ventures etc is still a news and even these wiki policies that you mentioned says that if something is from a reliable source its admissible.Miketesting (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to explain - you're referring to the standard on whether a source can be used to support a fact or some information within an article. You are correct that it simply needs to be published in a reliable source. There is a different standard though for sources that may be used to establish the notability of a topic, and those sources must contain in-depth information and "Independent Content" about the company. So standard notices, regurgitated PR, funding, interviews with execs and other references (which can be fine for supporting facts/info in the article) are not acceptable for establishing notability. See WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Energies Limited

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

The subject is receiving attention due to its recent IPO. Anyways, after searching for in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources, I was unable to find any. The cited sources are trivial, as per WP:ORGTRIV, and the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All I see are press releases, stock analysis/prediction reports, expansion plans and funding rounds, i.e., routine announcements. The sources fail the WP:SIRS check and the coverage around the IPO does not guarantee notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This company has recently been in the news due to its IPO, with substantial media coverage spanning 30 pages of Google News. Notably, 95% of the news comes from reliable sources. Deleting this article isn't a valid option. While Draftify could be useful to some extent. Especially since I'm not able to build a policy-driven case for keeping this article, it's not the perfect solution either. Hitro talk 17:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sundus Global

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

Does not meet NCORP, created be one editor with few edits elsewhere and deprodded without any explanation. WP:BEFORE check shows little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of performance analysis tools. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Software, Inc.

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

Sources are all about products made by the company, not the company itself. I could find no secondary or tertiary sources discussing the company; it fails to meet GNG or WP:NBUSINESS. The company's products seem like they may be notable, but the company itself fails notability per WP:INHERITORG. This page also appears to have been made by an undisclosed COI, as the editor who made this page has exclusively edited this article and articles about this company's software. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From a glance at GlowCode, I'm not confident that would survive an AfD either - can we get more discussion on whether it's a suitable redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned on MSDN Magazine as another profiler. Another ATD could be List of performance analysis tools. IgelRM (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Nominator) I did a source search for GlowCode and while there are plenty of trivial mentions in sources, I'm not seeing any sort of WP:SIGCOV, agree that it may need an AFD as well. Support List of performance analysis tools as the redirect target, it's not perfect but I can't find a better target article; that's the only article that links to Electric Software or GlowCode other than each other. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Healthera

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

it does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stockly

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adecco General Staffing, Australia

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Article read like an advertisement before that material was deleted, but I did a before search, and didn't come up with much aside from company profiles on different sites; nothing in the way of actual new releases, press, etc. Seems like this should be deleted OR redirected/merged to The Adecco Group. If I'm missing anything, I'll gladly rescind. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 18:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The views supporting keeping the page are more persuasive and well-argued, and outweigh those suggesting deletion. (non-admin closure) The editing spirit (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linxea

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

Unlikely to be notable: its a brokerage, that is only relevant in France, and doesn't make any claims for notability. Sadads (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Communication

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, English or Bengali (ফ্রেন্ডস কমিউনিকেশন), just passing mentions in articles about their films. The same is true of the sources cited, it's WP:REFBOMB'd with 96 citations about the films, but just 13 of them actually make passing mention of the company, literally "produced by Friends Communication" in each case. Wikishovel (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Giving more weight to arguments engaging in critical source assessment, and less weight to those engaging in WP:VAGUEWAVE, consensus is that sourcing does not meet NCORP. Owen× ☎ 12:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Security

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

Does not meet WP:NORG: the article is entirely a list of acquisitions and funding rounds, referenced to trivial coverage ("inclusion in lists of similar organizations" and "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business"). No significant coverage. Dan • ✉ 22:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The company is a notable player in the cybersecurity industry, particularly in cloud-native security. Aqua Security has significant media coverage from reputable sources like Bloomberg, TechCrunch, and The Wall Street Journal --Loewstisch (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The citations to Bloomberg are directory information. They do not indicate a WP:CORP that is distinguishable from all other cyber security firms worldwide. Being a financially successful corporation does not a notable one maketh. Ventric (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I totally agree about Bloomberg, as it is just a directory. Loewstisch (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the other references you mentioned - the Techcrunch articles are regurgitated PR on funding rounds with no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. The WSJ articles - one has a quote from a company exec, no in-depth information about the company as required by CORPDEPTH, the other is another rehash of a funding announcement, fails ORGIND. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
  • Keep as the company is well-covered in specific business and security literature (per my additional WP before search), such as books on DevOps, Kubernetes, containerized applications, and cloud security. The page and its sources are also about software. Some security-industry guidebooks also heavily analyze various Aqua software tools, including Trivy and Kube-hunter. --美しい歌 (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit simply added three book titles to a new section, and did not connect these references to the prose or explain their relevance. Of the three, Rice (2020) is partially written by company representatives and is not a reliable source: "this work is part of a collaboration between O'Reilly and Aqua Security" (p. ii), Binnie & McCune (2021) is unavailable on Google Books so I can't confirm a reference to the article subject, and Aversa (2023) simply makes passing references for how to use Aqua Security products, but does not demonstrate any notability whatsoever. Dan • ✉ 12:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was not solely referring to those books, as there are many more. I agree that Rice (2020) is not an independent source. However, Cloud Native Security devotes a significant portion to the software, while Aversa's book covers the software side of Aqua Security in depth, including descriptions of various software structures, acquisitions, and principles. 美しい歌 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Cloud Native Security" book says nothing about the company and the only mentions of the company are in relation to installing some of the software. We require in-depth information about the *company*. HighKing++ 10:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the majority of coverage is comprised of trivial mentions. If it were kept, it would require a sharp reduction in content because it reads as WP:ADS - it is largely self-promo content. However, the lack of specific coverage and the inclusion in "who-to-watch" lists and whatnot does not comprise notability. CapnPhantasm (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are mainly about routine investment rounds, but not all of them. Some Hebrew sources, as well as a few U.S. ones, offer sufficient and independent coverage. The company passes ORG notability threshold ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example? The only non-trivial reference in the article appears to be that of the The New Stack article; the rest of the references are completely trivial funding drivel. A Google News search likewise finds no relevant reliable sources. Dan • ✉ 00:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting NCORP. All deletes claim that the article is imperfect: this is true however AFDISNOTCLEANUP. So weak arguments for deletion. gidonb (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/move to draft space, the article was almost certainly created by the company itself and is almost entirely based on poor quality sources. I've removed the most egregious claims/sources and what remains is "a list of acquisitions and funding rounds" as stated by the nominator. While a stub article could probably be created from reliable sources, it does not seem fair to allow a "$1 billion dollar" company's marketing department to create work for volunteers. The article should be created via the WP:AFC process instead of allowing a COI article to be created directly in mainspace without repercussions. Brandon (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP Youknow? (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Review of references yields many tech blogs and VC funding reports, and no significant, independent, reliable secondary sources. Jtwhetten (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll spare everyone the meta-commentary so as to avoid sounding like a paranoiac but the sources available is truly the trivial-ist of WP:ORGTRIV it is possible to get. By design, a pain to get through. Got up to page 10, nothing that contributes to NCORP in the slightest. Binnie and McCune (2021) does briefly mention Aqua in the context of how to use some software, but there is insufficient content about the software for it to contribute to the notability of even the software. Aversa (2023) is published by BPB Publishing which is a predatory publisher, so unless someone gives me a good reason, I am inclined to decline to review it beyond that. Best, Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An Israeli unicorn with multiple reliable sources and a minimum but significant level of coverage in reputable independent media. In addition, the topic of the discussion is also a set of various software apps that have also received significant media attention even in the industry focused papers and books.
Hib Al Gibol (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see the sources in Hebrew, some books, and at least Calcalistech have required deep coverage with analysis, brief overivew, etc that allows for anyone to "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" - as WP:ORGDEPTH says --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calcalistech is similar to Techcrunch. It almost the same format and its junk. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets have a look at the first block of references:
Ref 1 [34] Inteview with founder. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 2 [35] Paid for profile.
Ref 3 [36] Paid for profile
Ref 4 [37] An X of Y article. This is a paid-for profile and is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 5 [38] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 6 [39] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 7 [40] This is PR profile with interview material. It fails WP:SIRS. Its not independent.
Ref 8 [41] Another list of unicorns. A profile. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 9 [42] This is the passing mention. Context is wrong. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 10 [43] Passing mention. Context is wrong. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 11 [44] This details Aquas own security report. Its a WP:SPS source.
Ref 12 [45] Discusses the report above.

So in the first 12 reference not a single reference passed either WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPTRIV. All the information like most startups comes from Aqua itelf. It is a complete failure of WP:NCORP. Its another UPE advertisement. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll relist this for a few more days to allow editors arguing to Keep this article to rebut the source review which identifies the existing sources as inadequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep according to WP:SUBSTANTIAL, partly WP:PRODUCT and WP:CORPDEPTH. I found this discussion very interesting and would like to clarify and help the "pro-life aka keep" voters with a clear example of substantial media coverage. Let's start with WP:PRODUCT. I applied the WP Product while reviewing the book Cloud Native Security, which was mentioned twice in this discussion. I found that Aqua Security’s product, kube-hunter, received significant and in-depth coverage in the book. It wasn't mentioned briefly in any way, but it was thoroughly examined as one of the key tools for auditing and securing Kubernetes environments. The coverage overpassed the book passage requirement (WP Substantial) for the coverage be significant and not trivial. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, when a company is known for a series of products, it's best to cover both the company and its products in one consolidated article. Aqua Security's tools, such as kube-hunter and kube-bench, are crucial to its operations and have been recognized by independent, reliable sources, making them notable enough to be included in the same article as the company. Given the deep coverage at least in a source like Cloud Native Security, the page may be notable. For these reasons, I think the article should be restructured to avoid redundant and promotional corporate achievements and mention some of its software. Second, let's come back to WP:SUBSTANTIAL and its second bullet point: A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization. I spent some time and also reviewed the coverage of Aqua Security in multiple TechCrunch articles, which provide often trivial but often substantial and ongoing media attention that clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for an organization. For example, Aqua Security has been the highlighted for its large market presence and role in the industry with small but overall good analyses and feedback made by the authors of the Techcrunch. I mean, there were not only mentions of funding rounds, but much more. For example, the 2021 article discusses Aqua’s transition from a product-based company to a platform that secures the entire cloud-native environment, with notable achievements in container and Kubernetes security. Similarly, earlier articles from 2019 also focus on Aqua's innovative approach to container security, explaining its role in securing Fortune 500 customers' critical cloud environments. Third point I've read The Marker media - one of the top in Israel and not tech-only. The article provides detailed analysis of Aqua Security’s unique position in the cloud-native security market, focusing on its specialized approach to securing applications during runtime, which makes it different from competitors like Wiz and Orca. The reporter highlights how Aqua Security’s agent-based solution provides deeper protection than agentless systems. This deep coverage in the article also shows that Aqua’s technology is recognized as being more comprehensive but with a more complex integration process. Additionally, The Marker analyzes the growing overlapping among key players of the cybersecurity industry, where Aqua Security is moving towards offering broader, more integrated solutions by acquiring startups like Argon. The article also analyzes how Aqua Security acts in a competitive Israel market. The media is positioning Aqua as a leader in cloud-native security while providing detailed not trivial and interesting comparisons with new competitors such as Apwind, Sweet Security, and others. So we see here no routine or promotion, but clear deep "homemade" (in-house) significant coverage. Here is the article: [46]. My last point. There is another substantial coverage of Aqua Security in The Marker, which explores how the company strategically acquires competitors to become a bigger player, bite a bigger market share and reduce competition. The article also hints that such activities are not very good and may harm the thriving and competitive ecosystem of security startups, and and so on. Link [47]. 46.120.127.13 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. WP:PRODUCT does not apply here as this article is about the company. See the note above by HighKing: We require in-depth information about the *company*.
    2. None of the articles in TechCrunch satisfy WP:SUBSTANTIAL as you claim. Please compare to WP:ORGTRIV's example: standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: … of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, … All three of the articles are entirely about receiving investment funding:
      • "Aqua Security raises $135M at a $1B valuation for its cloud native security platform"
      • "Container security startup Aqua lands $62M Series C"
      • "Cloud-native cybersecurity startup Aqua Security raises $60M and remains a unicorn"
    3. The first article you cite in The Marker is also about funding, at least according to Google Translate's rendering of the headline: Hebrew: אקווה סקיוריטי גייסה 60 מיליון דולר בשווי של לפני שלוש שנים, lit. 'Aqua Security raised $60 million in value three years ago'
    4. The second article in The Marker fails a different WP:ORGTRIV example of trivial coverage: … of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, … Hebrew: לפני חצי שנה ארגון השיקה מוצר – כעת היא נמכרת ליוניקורן הסייבר אקווה בעשרות מיליוני דולרים, lit. 'Six months ago an organization launched a product - now it is sold to the cyber unicorn Aqua for tens of millions of dollars'
    Dan • ✉ 20:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to disagree with you and choose the side of the other user who expressed their views above and found those articles. I’ve read it in Hebrew and must admit it really meets the requirements for SIGCOV. I also believe it's important to look beyond the titles and brief summaries of these articles. It's true that many articles begin with catchy headlines about funding or acquisitions, but that's just standard practice for media. The real value lies in the depth of analysis within the text itself.
    For instance, The Marker articles do not simply report on Aqua Security’s funding; they provide detailed insight into Aqua’s strategic role in the cloud-native security market and how its technology sets it apart from competitors. One article goes into a thorough discussion of Aqua's unique approach to securing applications during runtime, contrasting it with agentless solutions like those from Wiz and Orca. This isn't just routine coverage—it’s an exploration of the technological depth and market position that Aqua has carved out. The piece also discusses the challenges and advantages of Aqua’s agent-based solution, offering a more complex and comprehensive take than simple mentions of funding rounds.
    As for TechCrunch, it’s a tricky question but the rule about “ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization” should be used here. I will add additional in a separete comment. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NCORP has specific guidance on assessing independence and SIGCOV (particularly ORGTRIV), and the sources provided here do not meet these parameters. Brief coverage of product announcements, funding rounds, acquisitions, etc. is not SIGCOV, content purely derived from what the company says about itself is not independent, and coverage of a product is not inherited by the company. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New significant sources added I was inspired by the latest updated within the discussion and found out that aside from this newly found reliable significant coverage source by the Marker [48] there are some better sources and ground for raising the page’s notability.
Here is another significant piece of coverage on the topic: https://www.ice.co.il/finance/news/article/836868. The Ice.co.il sou provides substantial coverage of Aqua Security by analyzing the impact of its acquisition of Argon. The article share the details of the Argon’s technology and explains how it protects the software supply chain from "code manipulation and malicious insertions." It also make an overview of the context and notes the role in the cybersecurity landscape for Aqua Security and explain the readers how this purchase heps the organizatin to become "the only provider capable of offering full protection for development processes" in cloud environments. Furthermore, it highlights industry challenges, such as increasing cyber threats, and references recent high-profile breaches like SolarWinds.
Another reliable source from The Marker:
https://www.themarker.com/technation/2021-03-10/ty-article/.premium/0000017f-e5eb-d62c-a1ff-fdfbb0b00000
I have an access to it and see that the article provides significant coverage of Aqua Security, stopping in detail at key developments such as its latest funding round, business growth, who invested and why invested (it shed some light that CEO Davidoff worked with one of the investors in the previous round on other projects) and the history of the company. It also explains how the company move from the container security niche to the broader solutions on the global scale.
I have also rewritten the page and made it equally about the software and the company. That is why the company has a large amount of notable software that is the subject of significant reviews/guides in the industry books during the last 3-5 years.
Here are some books I researched thanks to WP BEFORE and share how they contribute to the software/company's notability:
  1. In the book Mastering Cloud Native by Aditya Pratap Bhuyan, Aqua Security receives significant coverage, particularly highlighting its Aqua Platform, which offers comprehensive end-to-end security for cloud-native environments. The book has explanations of key features such as image scanning, runtime protection, and compliance enforcement, demonstrating software’s major role in securing containerized applications and more.
  2. In Security for Containers and Kubernetes by Luigi Aversa, Aqua Security's open-source tool Trivy receives significant, in-depth coverage across several chapters, demonstrating its importance in container security. The book highlights Trivy's functionalities like vulnerability detection, SBOM support, and many other boring technical but not passing-mention stuff. Given the thorough, independent analysis in this book, Aqua Security's software meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for significant coverage.
  3. In the book Kubernetes - A Complete DevOps Cookbook, an entire chapter is dedicated to a how-to guide on integrating Aqua Security's Trivy tool into CI/CD pipelines for container security. This section provides detailed, step-by-step instructions for using Trivy with platforms such as CircleCI and GitLab. The guide was written by authors independent of Aqua Security, which corresponds with substantial coverage under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (namely this part:: an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies).
So, to sum up, there have been found and added to the page at least 3 reliable sources with non-trivial and in-depth coverage of the company, while we also have a multiple books covering the software and the page now is a combination of the company and a product. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review:
  • Dor, Ofir (2024-01-03). אקווה סקיוריטי גייסה 60 מיליון דולר בשווי של לפני שלוש שנים [Aqua Security raised $60 million in value three years ago]. The Marker (in Hebrew).
    This is standard WP:CORPTRIV of a corporate funding round.
  • Cohen, Nitzan (2021-02-12). אקווה סקיוריטי רוכשת חברה ישראלית שתגן על מפתחי תוכנה [Aqua Security acquires an Israeli company that will protect software developers]. Finance. ICE (in Hebrew).
    This is standard WP:CORPTRIV of a corporate acquisition. Your comment that it an overview of the context and notes the role in the cybersecurity landscape for Aqua Security and explain the readers how this purchase heps the organizatin describes the standard boilerplate corporate speak found in these types of articles, and is not actually a notable journalistic description of the company.
  • Zahrovich, Omri (2021-03-10). אקווה סקיוריטי הופכת לחד קרן: 'יש 'הייפ' בענף, אבל לנו יש ביצועים חזקים' [Aqua Security becomes a unicorn: 'There is 'hype' in the industry, but we have strong performance']. The Marker (in Hebrew).
    This is standard WP:CORPTRIV of inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists.
  • Bhuyan, Aditya Pratap (2024). Mastering Cloud Native: A Comprehensive Guide to Containers, DevOps, CI/CD, and Microservices. ISBN 979-833423401-7.
    This is a self-published book for its author to advertise his consulting business.
  • Aversa, Luigi (2023). Security for Containers and Kubernetes. Delhi: BPB Publications. ISBN 978-93-55518-439. OCLC 1382693746.
    I already noted above that this book simply makes passing references for how to use Aqua Security products. Further, Alpha3031 identified above that is published by BPB Publishing which is a predatory publisher.
  • Karslioglu, Murat (2020). Kubernetes - A Complete DevOps Cookbook: Build and Manage Your Applications, Orchestrate Containers, and Deploy Cloud-Native Services. Birmingham: Packt. ISBN 978-1-83882-804-2. OCLC 1190651785. OL 27083721W.
    The use of Trivy is explained in pp. 475–481; however, it is a gross exaggeration to claim that an entire chapter is dedicated to a how-to guide on integrating Aqua Security's Trivy tool as the containing chapter (chapter 9) makes no mention of it or of Aqua Security the company outside this six-page subsection. As noted by HighKing, we require in-depth information about the *company* which a brief explanation of how to deploy one of its products does not qualify for.
None of these above qualify as independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dan • ✉ 15:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lots of canvanssing going on here. I had a look at the books as well. The Aditya Pratap Bhuyan book is self-published. Its a junk ref. The Luigi Aversa is essentially a manual and Aqua is mentioned, but its passing mention. Its more on how to implement Trivy and not specific to the company. The Marker is like Tech Crunch, as detailed at a previous Afd. There is nothing here in this company that makes it particular notable. scope_creepTalk 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich! The Marker is a financial daily owned by Haaretz, Israel's newspaper of record. Nothing like Tech Crunch! gidonb (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting and analyzing the reliable sources
  • This source from TheMarker [49] is not WP:CORPTRIV but a classic WP:SUBSTANTIAL and meet NCROP criteria. Here is my analysis:
According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations and companies, significant coverage must be:
  • Reliable: Published by trustworthy sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • Secondary: Produced by sources independent of the subject.
  • Independent: Not affiliated with the subject; free from conflicts of interest.
  • In-depth: Goes beyond trivial mentions or routine announcements; provides substantial information and analysis.
Reliability of the Source: TheMarker is a well-respected Israeli business publication known for its credible journalism and in-depth reporting. The article is written by Ofir Dor, a journalist, indicating professional authorship. Conclusion: The source is reliable.
Independence and Secondary Nature: The article is independent of Aqua Security; there is no indication of it being sponsored content or a press release. It provides analysis and reporting separate from any company influence. Conclusion: The article is an independent, secondary source.
Depth of Coverage: the article talks/coverages on Market Position (Discusses Aqua's maintained valuation amidst industry challenges), Company Background (provides history since its founding in 2015, total investments, and key personnel); ::Industry Analysis (explores the competitiveness across the industry, mentioning specific competitors and how Aqua's approach differs. It analyzes industry trends, such as the convergence of cybersecurity solutions and the debate over agent-based versus agentless security tools); Technical Evaluation (discusses the technical aspects of Aqua's solutions. Includes perspectives on the effectiveness of their approach compared to competitors. The article addresses both the business and technical dimensions of Aqua Security, offering a broad overview “that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements).
Avoidance of Trivial or Routine Coverage: not Routine, while it mentions the funding event, the article expands significantly on other aspects.
Conclusion. The coverage is significant and non-trivial because the focus is on analyzing the company's position, strategies, and industry impact rather than merely announcing routine stuff.
  • Second source for analysis [50]. I will be brief here. The article, instead of trivial routine mentioning of the purchase of Argon competitor, explores in-depth how the acquisition of the startup helps Aqua Security's position in cloud-native security “by enhancing their protection across the software development lifecycle, especially focusing on software supply chain security”. It also provides us with a discussion on Argon's agentless solutions and the integration into Aqua’s platform that may strengthen Aqua’s capability in securing apps "from code to runtime," which may be a good leverage among the competitors. The article further mentions the context of cyberattacks, referencing infamous incidents like the SolarWinds and Codecov attacks and discussing how Aqua’s integration of Argon’s technology will influence this. This industry-wide analysis adds significance and in-depth coverage that goes beyond a routine announcement of the acquisition.
  • Third source [51] the article goes beyond routine corporate announcements by…. analyzing the company's growth trajectory, financial details, and competitive positioning within the cloud-native security market. Additionally, it highlights Aqua Security's evolution, telling the readers how it progressed from a container-based security company to another industry: cloud-native security platforms. The coverage also has details about the company's revenue growth, clients, and how it fits among the global industry giants like CheckPoint and Palo Alto Networks. All that is filled with some kind of irony about the market hype around cloud-native security and the journalist kind of questions if it’s enough for Aqua, even along with tis good financial performance, to be distinguished from competitors and survive.
So, to sum up, this is pretty decent depth of coverage, providing financial specifics, industry comparisons, and market positioning. It definitely is reliable, secondary and deep enough. I also need to highlight what is the TheMarker media, as for many it may sound like some junk. So, TheMarker is a leading financial and business news outlet in Israel. It has a long-standing reputation for its thorough journalism and reliable reporting. Founded in 1999, it is part of the prestigious Haaretz group, one of Israel's oldest and most respected media organizations (founded in 1918). TheMarker is well-known for its investigative journalism, independence of view, deep and critical economic and business analysis. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ג'ימיהחיה. As I understand it "לפי הודעת אקווה" translates to "According to Aqua's announcement". Is this incorrect? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the news includes also the company's announcement, which I disregarded and did not include in my analysis, as well as any comments from any parties—whether from the startups that were acquired or from industry competitors. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is not including all the parts where it says "according to the company" and "the company claims" ("באקווה לפחות טוענים"), etc in the only parts that aren't about the funding round how you arrived at the conclusion there was no indication of any company influence? Because I'm not sure what parts you think are left once you get rid of that and the top three paragraphs, which are the fact that they raised money, how much they raised, and the fact that they announced they raised money. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add that the "definition" used above Independent: Not affiliated with the subject; free from conflicts of interest addresses only half of the definition, and probably the reason why some editors are struggling with wrapping their heads around what "Independent Source" means. See WP:ORGIND which not only comments on the "not affiliated" at a corporate level, but also addresses the *content" such that the article text must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As Alpha3031 correctly says above, once you remove the obvious regurgitated company information, where is the *in-depth* original/independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation/etc? There's nothing in any of those articles. There is no "Independent Content" - all of the information is regurgitated from company sources. HighKing++ 10:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 29 and to get it back on the logs. This may be closed by an admin whenever they deem it ready
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. I see a great deal of special pleading and talking up of incidental coverage, padded out with a mass of company material. Basically there's hardly anything of substance in the sourcing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article reads as if it was written by a corporate technical writer. It is free of any obvious marketing language, but is entirely written from the viewpoint of the company. Corporate notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This article describes what the company has done, but nothing in this article is about third-party sources have written about the company. This article does not speak for itself and does not state what independent reliable sources have said about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reviewing the sources, they're all WP:ORGTRIV or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; there's insufficient WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS to pass WP:NCORP. To answer a few points made above, The Marker's coverage is classic ORGTRIV (valuations, capital investments, etc.), and The New Stack source, while substantial, includes a little note in small type at the bottom: "TNS owner Insight Partners is an investor in: Docker, Aqua Security", which would raise questions about The New Stack's independence as a source on this company. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an Israeli tech nerd, never heard of it. It is definitely not notable locally, and considering the bad sources (as pointed out above many times) and lack of any real content in the page itself, it isn't notable in a niche either. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing isn't up to par and I can't identify a logical merge or redirect target.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finvasia

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

An article about a finance company. Previous instances were soft-deleted at AfD (January 2022) and deleted at AfD in April 2024; this instance was created by a new editor, rejected at AfC in July, then moved into main space by the article creator. The present article content lists acquisitions and licenses which fall under WP:ORGTRIV; the most substantial references are the interview pieces in Times Now and Cyprus Business News, but these are presenting a company-aspirational view. I don't see sufficient coverage to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Concurring with nom, and also with the previous instances of soft-deletions at AfD. Although future notability might be possible from what seems to be emerging scandals about tech breaks coming to light. GuardianH (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Askew Saddlery Company

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

Reviewed during NPP. Only has a single source, and no additional reliable sources were found online. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our guidelines provide us with a mechanism to assist in determining whether a company was notable and the criteria are rooted in sourcing.
Your arguments are that on the one hand, we can't expect adequate sourcing from that period of time (over 100 years ago) - but this is the mechanism which the community has decided is best to determine notability. Otherwise it might as well be an opinion where all it takes it that someone says they believe it is notable and therefore deserves an article.
Your better argument is that you've provided two sources that offer "significant coverage" of the *company* itself and are entirely independent. The first source is from the Kansas City Journal, Sept 20 1925. In my opinion, it reads very much like a promo piece, with the company celebrating 60 years in business. The vast majority of the article focuses on the founders. You might argue that back in those days, companies were often or not associated closely with real people (not faceless corporations) and so writing about the illustrious lives, trials and tribulations of the founders was conflated with writing about the company - but we still see this sort of thing today too. Celebrities setting up companies to sell their coffee or fashion accessories and usually the coverage is focused on the celeb and not the company. Not many of those companies meet the criteria for notability either because the sourcing fails GNG/NCORP. But whatever about the merits or otherwise of the first source, none of the other sources meet the criteria. The company gets a mere mention-in-passing in second source in the same publication ("Admits Forgery Attempts").
The Kansas City Times from 7th Nov 1899 concerns the company filing a petition for an injunction, it does not provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
If there are other good sources out there that provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, I might reconsider my !vote. HighKing++ 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the current discussion point between HK and CFA, ideally with some other voices to establish a consensus on that issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the sources but I don't see NCORP as being intended to apply to companies long defunct. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had a dig through archive.org and there doesn't seem to be a lot of in-depth coverage from the time. There's half a column about the company as part of the (extremely uncritical) article about founder Frank Askew in the 1901 Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri, and there's a a short front-page article in the Lincoln Star about the company merging with Harpham Bros in 1928. There are otherwise several passing mentions in biographies of people who worked for them - often with a comment that Askew were the largest saddlery business in Kansas City - and many routine reports of court cases, trade union matters and so on. It feels like they may have been a notable concern at the time, but I'd agree that the sourcing is extremely weak by modern standards. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we step back for a minute. The company existed, etc. The question is, was this "just another company" or was it a notable company. Are you saying it was notable because it was the "largest saddlery business in Kansas City"? I kinda doubt a claim such as that meets our criteria in any case (happy to be wrong on that though). Or are there other reasons why this company was notably in its own right, and not just because the founder was well known? HighKing++ 12:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NCORP states: 'The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area.' Seems to suggest to me that strict NCORP criteria is not required and what should be considered is GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to take systemic bias into account but I don't think a Kansas City leather company is a subject that was meant to be covered by this policy consideration, Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Companies proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Companies&oldid=1245727771"