Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XEAR

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XEAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unreferenced article about company. Googling found just YouTube, Linkedin and this Wp article. Note: The username of the SPA that created this matches name of the company founder. DexDor ^(talk) 06:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is the issue? I am the company founder, but there are many company pages on wikipedia - and it is also categorised as such.carsten.schipke ^(talk) 06:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be acceptable and better composed carsten.schipke, this article needs better sources such as third-party coverage be it news and magazine for weight and depth. If willing, we can draft and userfy this to your userspace where you can maintain until it is acceptable and set for mainspace and this would also allow you to familiarize yourself with how editing works. Cheers,

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as mentioned above as not only is this is a newly founded company so coverage will not be bountiful, there's nothing to suggest better improvement for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, though I still do not understand the reasoning. Its not massive marketing or anything like that - so I don't understand how the age of a company decides whether it deserves to be found in an encyclopedia that seamingly attempts to index the whole world.carsten.schipke ^(talk) 08:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WHYN. We are not attempting to "index the whole world". For one thing, every article (and especially articles created by those unfamiliar with Wp editing and who have a COI) increases the workload on the (experienced) Wikipedians who fix and maintain things. DexDor ^(talk) 21:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The guidelines governing this, WP:CORP, ask for sources and references from some editorially independent venues -- which this lacks. News coverage, reviews, even posts in well-regarded blogs can help. @Carsten.schipke: Typically, an article must pass tests of WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Wikipedia is not, and WP:Notability. Most articles here pass the first 3, and then we argue about notability, which is essentially what people in the discussion say it is. My recommendation here though is based primarily on the lack of sources in your article and my inability to find any. Because of the self-promotion that sometimes occurs, the policies for inclusion of companies (and people) are quite exclusive (be publicly traded). I would suggest an article for your product(s), which will could be covered in the press, academically, and on the Web in a way that may merit inclusion.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2015 (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.