Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Employsure

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. Sandstein 11:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Employsure

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

Already speedy deleted recently per CSD A7, this article was clearly created with promotional intent. No indication of significance or importance - just having some sources does not necessarily confer notability (WP:NOTDIR). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding enough source coverage after several searches; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply repeating advertising, the sources are trivial and unconvincing and this is essentially still actually speedy material, emphasizing the concerns also, so there's simply nothing actually convincing or substantial. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As well as the passing coverage of investment announcements, I can find a couple of brief pieces which mention this firm as one "disrupting" a particular local market sector but not substantial coverage to indicate more than a firm going about its business and worthy of encycopaedia coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. I vote to keep the page as this have have many independent primary sources in Australia, which is enough to establish notability. Homeifi (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Homeifi has only made 5 edits to Wikipedia. All recent. All to this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2016 (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.