Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CausaLens

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CausaLens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Promo / WP:ADMASQ on a non-notable company. References consist of routine business reporting, non-RS sources like Forbes contributors, passing (or no) mentions, etc; the only one that comes even close to RS sigcov is the Wealth & Finance News, which isn't alone enough. BEFORE search finds nothing beyond social media, company listings, and the like. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY / WP:ORGCRIT -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotion masquerading as an article. Given the creator's history of contributions, there's also a good chance that this was written with a conflict of interest (might even be paid editing). In any case, as noted by the nominator, it's not even clear that the topic is notable enough (at least for now). Pichpich (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly advertising/promotion of a company without significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate necessary notability. AusLondonder (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 10:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable & promotional content present. TimothyStellar (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recent new company, supported by funding information, non-notable awards and proposition claims. Searches find start-up coverage (e.g. [1]) and recent funding-announcement-based coverage (e.g. [2]) but these are insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2022 (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.