Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LogiNext

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 05:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LogiNext

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I declined an A7 tag on this article, as there appear to be numerous sources that suggest an encyclopaedic article could be written. However, the article has been previously deleted via PROD and speedy, and so I think we need a proper discussion over this. So have at it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The news links on the company's website at https://www.loginextsolutions.com/company/newsmedia might be useful references. It might be helpful to restore the history of the deleted articles (unless there were copyright concerns) to see whether anything can be salvaged from the previous versions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've restored the history so people can do that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the word "headquarted" now part of the English language rather than just marketing-bollocks-speak? I know that I got it taken out of published materials as the latter in a company where I worked in the 1990s, but maybe things have changed since then. The links from the company's own site pointed out by Eastmain just seem to be press releases and "30 under 30" fluff. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger - 'fraid so: wikt:headquarter. Widespread in North America well before the 1990s and not just in the business world. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Changes made to article since nomination for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LogiNext&diff=1163071219&oldid=1162350560 . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Forbes India article is actually a pretty decent source, but it's specifically about the business as a start up. It says Sanghvi worked for Deloitte... and Deloitte recognized his company? (That's a PR release). Got a review of two software - basically what we have is a lot of "this is startup to keep an eye on" type articles, which is very NOW, but not showing "ongoing media coverage" as described in WP:CORP. Denaar (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; see my rationale at WP:SERIESA. This kind of hair-splitting is frustrating when we know the article is clearly a promo and the company is not significant in any sense other than its existence as a normal business. I wish we could come to consensus on whether financial and business press alone can establish notability (in which case Wikipedia will be flooded with articles like this) or whether something else is needed. FalconK (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the presumption of nefarious editing on the part of article contributors is misguided. One can be very opposed to articles on companies that are less than a generation old and still critique those less so with good faith, and I'm seeing good faith in pretty short supply these days here, unfortunately. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SERIESA is only only essay written by just 2 editors. I looked and could find no evidence of public discussion about it such as an RfC. I could write a countervailing essay, grab another editor and, boom, WP:BIGTHOUGHTS, ready to cite at AfDs. Among other egregious misunderstandings of business, it asserts a company's bankruptcy or merger as routine events.
-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In another recent AfD, another editor made a good comment I'd describe as "WP:NOTMONUMENT":
"I get the desire to purge content that comes from seemingly impure origins, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not a monument to our personal discernment or high standards."
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing that is clear here, is that the other participants who have submitted a !vote have a significantly divergent interpretation of NCORP from yourself. Your interpretation is one that I would take issue with as well, and while it should really be discussed at a centralised location like WT:NCORP or WP:VPP, not here, I am finding it difficult to leave this without comment. For example, you point out:Among other egregious misunderstandings of business, it asserts a company's bankruptcy or merger as routine events, which, if it is a misunderstanding of anything, is clearly a misunderstanding of the WP:CORPDEPTH, which enumeratesof the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business. It's true, not every company that closes does so by going bankrupt. For them, it may well be the most significant event that has ever happened... For us? Is it narcissistic to say that it may not meet our well established standards on what is and is not considered significant coverage? Because it doesn't. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a bit of a mess, with lots of show-your-working research about where the company is located, etc.; severe copy-editing pruning would be needed if the article survives. Leaving that aside, to focus on whether notability is demonstrated: (1) we need to disregard company role announcements and 30-under-30 awards to individuals (even though the associated profile interview is largely about attainments and ambitions for this company); (2) the several industry awards appear to fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH rather than being inherently notable; (3) acquisition announcements also fall under trivial coverage. Basically, I am seeing enough to confirm that this is a firm as one of several in its logistics sector going about its business but I am not seeing evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per some (not all) of the refs Ceyockey added to the article that meet WP:RS. They're long enough. They explain what the company does and how it might change the logistics world. They explain what makes the company different from competitors and what makes it similar. WP:FORBES, not WP:FORBESCON, applies to the Forbes article, so it's reliable. My own searches using the links in the box at the top of the page turned up what appear to be more reliable articles. We don't do Google hits as a criterion but I mention this because I think there's more good stuff out there. I'm going away so I don't have the time to go through them or do a ProQuest search (via the Wikipedia Library, a wonderful resource for AfDs).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've made two recent edits that might help. One is addition of an additional source with information regarding choice of founders to go with a cloud architecture; the other is the deletion of the 'recognitions' table that was rubbing some folks with a cheese grater. See https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Ceyockey/0/LogiNext . Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For those without TWL access or don't want to log in, the ProQuest article is republished from CV Magazine, where it is available without a paywall. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: Thanks, I've revised the citation to avoid the ProQuest resource. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like the script didn't transclude things on the last relist so I'm going to manually relist this and transclude to today's log. I am involved so feel free to close immediately but I'd consider this mostly procedural in nature.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. These guidelines require 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. Nothing here even comes close. HighKing⁺⁺17:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2023 (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.