Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

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 cachewatch


Companies deletion

Blockchain LLC

Blockchain LLC (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)

While company made bold claims at the height of crypto hype and was covered as such, plans fell through. There is no significant coverage of the current focus (gaming reputation). -- Luk talk 08:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fika Recordings

Fika Recordings (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)

Of the sources in the article, the only kinda in-depth coverage is in WeGotTickets (a ticketing company?) and DrownedInSound (web-zine). There's an interview w/ the founder in BBC Music blog, but I'm not convinced any of these are strong enough reliable sources for a notability argument. All the others are just mentions of Fika in the context of an album that has been released etc. WP:BEFORE in newspapers.com, google news/books, pressreader didn't turn up any additional coverage beyond mentions. Considered ATD but I don't see a clear merge or redirect target as the founder doesn't appear to be notable and the record label is associated with multiple musical groups. Zzz plant (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Designs PLC

Hybrid Designs PLC (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. Coverage is routine and WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AL A

AL A (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)

Entirely promotional article created by a WP:SPA. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baku Initiative Group

Baku Initiative Group (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 recently established non-profit organization, neither launched or backed by the Azerbaijani government, appears to be attempting to appropriate the concept of the Baku Initiative and amplify its significance. Notably, the Baku Initiative is an international effort originally led by the European Union. Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RLDatix

RLDatix (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 was largely written by a self-declared COI editor. All the sources cited are press releases. WP:BEFORE does not turn up anything other than PR and directories. Maybe Rathfelder can find some meritorious sources, but I did not. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It needs editting, not deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prianto

Prianto (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, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 09:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GR8 Tech

GR8 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)

Non-notable gambling company, sourced mostly with WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fintilect

Fintilect (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 software company. Routine coverage like M&As, renaming, investments, are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. UPE history is another issue. Gheus (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I haven't found anything outside of primary sources and routine business announcements. Many sources are "fintech" focused and I tend to view such sources with the same skepticism as crypto focused sites. I haven't found much in the way of notability for the previous iterations of the company either. The sources on the historic article don't seem to meet reliability or notability requirements either. The old page seems like a relic of a more lenient era of wikipedia. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Petroleum

Dubai Petroleum (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)

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources and contains mostly basic corporate information without establishing notability. Additionally, the article is sparse, unsourced in key areas, and does not provide the depth expected of an encyclopedic entry. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dubai Petroleum meets the notability requirements outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG through multiple independent and reliable sources that document its substantial historical, economic, and operational significance within the UAE’s energy sector.
Founded in the 1960s, the company played a pivotal role in transforming Dubai's economy with the discovery of the Fateh offshore oil field, and has since operated five major offshore fields: Fateh, South-West Fateh, Falah, Rashid, and Jalilah—a fact extensively covered by third-party sources such as Gulf News, Oxford Business Group, and The National.
From 2007, Dubai Petroleum Establishment assumed full operational control of Dubai’s oil assets, following the end of concession agreements with ConocoPhillips. It has since launched significant innovation initiatives, including Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques, HPHT drilling, and offshore structural inspection via drones and ROVs. These technical achievements have been recognized with industry awards, such as the Emirates Energy Award in 2013.
Its relevance is also institutional: Dubai Petroleum is a member of the Dubai Supreme Council of Energy, aligning it with broader governmental energy strategies. Moreover, its strategic partnerships—e.g., with Baker Hughes, TechnipFMC, and Petrasco—demonstrate global operational integration.
While the current article may lack depth, this is a case for expansion, not deletion. The nominator's claim that coverage is insufficient is refuted by a comprehensive analysis containing over 50 independent, verifiable citations, including from:
  • Oxford Business Group
  • The National
  • Gulf News
  • Rigzone
  • Human Rights Watch (environmental critiques)
  • Chambers and Partners (industry analysis)
  • Stock Titan, Zawya, and World Oil Online (industry coverage)
Furthermore, Dubai Petroleum has been part of major international policy discussions (e.g., energy sustainability during COP28) and has faced scrutiny regarding fossil fuel emissions, positioning it within ongoing global environmental debates—a mark of notability per WP:SIGCOV.
Deleting this article would remove coverage of a key institutional actor in Dubai's energy sector. A cleanup tag or {{expand}} would be more appropriate than deletion. — EduExplorer47 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am 99% confident this response was written by a language model. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% it is AI. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and so was the nomination too. MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a hot mess and should have gone through AFC (where it should have been declined), but it didn't so here we are. Agree on the nomination and vote being Chatty - but the presumption of notability of DPC is enormous so now we're here, it's a keep for me. I don't particularly like what we're keeping, but it's been given life and now we have to sustain it... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity learn

Infinity learn (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 fails to demonstrate notability through independent, reliable sources, relying instead on press releases and affiliated content. Its promotional tone and lack of in-depth third-party coverage make it unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding the notability and reliance on affiliated sources. I've already removed several promotional or affiliated references and replaced them with some independent sources that I believe are more neutral and reliable.
Could you please guide me further on the kind of changes that would align this article with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Specifically:
  • Are there certain sources currently in the article that still do not meet the standard of independence and reliability?
  • Would adding coverage from particular types of third-party publications (e.g. newspapers, academic journals, industry reviews) help establish notability?
  • Are there tone-related areas you feel still read as promotional?
I'm eager to improve the article and would appreciate any specific suggestions you can offer to help bring it in line with Wikipedia's expectations. Mahendra2601 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahendra2601 Just a quick question, were you paid for creating this article? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not paid to create this article. I came across a podcast of their CEO, talking about ai integration from school level which made me feel it deserved a proper page on Wikipedia. My intentions are purely to contribute meaningfully based on public interest and available verifiable information. If you have any suggestions or concerns about the content, I’m happy to discuss and improve it further. Mahendra2601 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. I G11'd this last time it was created and this version is not fundamentally better. Sourcing does not satisfy WP:ORGIND, essentially consisting of rehashed press releases. ~ A412 talk! 14:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WoodenStreet

WoodenStreet (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 article reads overly promotional and borders on G11. It needs a complete rewrite for neutral tone, but only if notability is established. When discounting routine business coverage such as press releases, funding announcements, and store opening updates, there is virtually no significant, in-depth coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Some cited success stories and profiles appear to be from dubious sources. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VGN Projects Estates

VGN Projects Estates (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 existing coverage consists primarily of press releases and routine land acquisition announcements, which do not constitute significant independent coverage. As such, the subject does not merit a standalone article under WP:NCORP. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AquaB

AquaB (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 fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Oia-pop (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false and baseless nomination that should be withdrawn. The article clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards, and I have since added multiple new, verifiable, and independent sources to further strengthen its reliability and alignment with WP:GNG
You are a new or relatively inactive account that appears to be nominating articles without sufficient understanding of notability criteria or proper engagement with the article’s actual content and sourcing. Wikipedia encourages constructive editing and improvement — not careless deletion nominations.
Per WP:BEFORE and WP:NOT, deletion should never be the first step when an article is clearly improvable and well-sourced, as is the case here. I strongly urge administrators and editors to dismiss this nomination and focus instead on collaborative improvements where needed. Sterling44 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeepSource

DeepSource (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 company does not meet the notability guideline for corporations. The only coverage of this corporation is from trade publications. The existing sources are either unreliable (Forbes) or routine coverage (TechCrunch). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackened Recordings

Blackened Recordings (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)

Blackened Recordings is not an independent entity from Metallica themselves. The origins of the record label are exclusively contained within the history of the band and their desire to want to own their own work. And this is, in fact, the sole purpose of the record label [1] (any source that exists out there discussing Blackened Recordings will likely just be a rehash of this initial announcement). It was made by Metallica, it does not sign any other artist but Metallica, and it has not released anything but work made by Metallica. It is also not similar to something like Reprise Records or Republic Records, which are whole companies with their own standout history, because Blackened Recordings has no history. And therefore, no reason to have its own page (see WP:NOPAGE). I suggest a redirect back to Metallica. λ NegativeMP1 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Card

Honest Card (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 criteria of WP:NCORP/WP:ORGCRIT or the broader WP:GNG. Every citation in the article is either the company’s own web domains, lightly rewritten press‑release items in local Indonesian business blogs (Infobanknews, Techverse.Asia, Kontan, Republika, Warta Ekonomi, Kompas), or brief venture‑funding notices (e.g. Preqin’s one‑sentence financing blurb). None offers the significant, independent, secondary coverage that policy requires. A thorough news‑database and web search turned up nothing beyond routine funding announcements and product‑launch snippets, which are explicitly classed as WP:ROUTINE and thus insufficient for notability.

The subject is also very young, so any claim to lasting notability is WP:TOOSOON. The article’s promotional tone, product‑feature list, and heavy reliance on primary sources underscore the absence of neutral, verifiable coverage. With no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the topic fails Wikipedia’s organisational notability standard. AndesExplorer (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respectfully oppose the deletion of the Honest Card Wikipedia page for several important reasons:
The company has demonstrated significance beyond routine announcements. Their $19.7 million Series A funding represents substantial investor confidence, they've secured official licensing from Indonesia's Financial Services Authority (OJK), and have achieved over 1 million users on Google Play Store Indonesia.
While applying WP:GEOSCOPE, we should recognize that Honest Card has particular regional significance in Indonesia, a nation of 270+ million people. Several cited sources are established Indonesian publications with journalistic standing. Kompas is Indonesia's largest newspaper, while Infobanknews, Republika, Kontan, and Warta Ekonomi are recognized business publications that have provided independent coverage beyond press releases.
Regarding WP:TOOSOON concerns, Honest Card has already achieved significant milestones that suggest notability: governmental licensing, major funding, Mastercard partnership, and substantial user adoption. These aren't preliminary achievements but established accomplishments.
Rather than deletion, I suggest we follow Wikipedia's collaborative spirit by improving the page: adding more independent sources as they become available, addressing any promotional tone, and expanding context about Indonesia's fintech sector. Geraeldo Sinaga (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comdata

Comdata (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/WP:ORGCRIT and the broader WP:GNG. The article is sourced to only two items:

  • a one‑paragraph Bloomberg wire about Ceridian’s 1995 purchase (reprinted in *The New York Times*) – routine transaction coverage; and
  • Fleetcor’s own 2014 investor news release announcing its $3.45 billion acquisition – a primary, self‑published source.

Database searches (Factiva/Lexis/Google News) locate nothing more substantial than brief Reuters market notes on the 2014 deal and similar M&A rumours – all explicitly WP:ROUTINE business disclosures lacking the in‑depth, independent, secondary analysis required by policy. No major newspaper, magazine, journal, or book offers sustained coverage of the company itself. AndesExplorer (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FlowerAura

FlowerAura (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)

Page was speedily deleted on May 2 and subsequently recreated. I again tagged for deletion, which was declined by Bbb23. As for the actual article, sources are all promotional fluff, interviews, or flat-out press releases copies. It would need a fundamental rewrite and much better sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mukuru Money Transfer

Mukuru Money Transfer (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/WP:ORGCRIT. All citations in the article are routine trade or primary pieces – ITWeb, *The Fintech Times*, Africa.com, *The Herald* (Zimbabwe, and the company’s own site – which are either self‑published, press‑release rewrites, or brief mention blogs. The isolated *BusinessLIVE* interview is likewise promotional and event‑based. Additional news‑database searches uncover only standard launch notices, licence approvals, sponsorship deals, and funding announcements, all classed as WP:ROUTINE. No source offers the sustained, in‑depth, independent secondary coverage required by policy. AndesExplorer (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JurisTech

JurisTech (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/WP:ORGCRIT and the broader WP:GNG. All listed citations are either routine local business pieces such as The Star, The Edge Malaysia and The Malaysian Reserve, re‑posted press‑release material on company or partner blogs, or passing mentions (e.g. a single paragraph in The Founder's Mentality). None provides the sustained, in‑depth, independent secondary coverage required by policy. The one heavily repeated story – CTOS Digital’s 2022 purchase of a 49 % stake – is a standard business transaction and therefore WP:ROUTINE; routine corporate deals do not in themselves confer notability. AndesExplorer (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incogni

Incogni (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 boldly blanked-and-redirected this article to Surfshark, its parent company. This was disputed on the talk page so now I'm bringing it to AfD. I'll copy my BLAR explanation here: " Looking through the history, this article was created, then subsequently tagged with Template:notability among other clean up tags. It was then redirected to the parent company, Surfshark. Following this redirection, an editor translated the French version of this article (which itself was translated from the earlier English version of this article) back in to English. " I do not see WP:GNG/WP:NCORP being met here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great check by me looking back. Clearly enough sources present to justify notability. Keep JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: coverage from PC Mag and Business Insider. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few of these are adverts, by the way, but yes, GNG is clearly met by the reliable independent ones. Keep. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMC Automotriz

MMC Automotriz (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)

Car manufacturing company that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Half of the sources cited in this article come from company's own website, while others are very short mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Environmental Solutions

Merlin Environmental Solutions (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 fails WP:NCORP. Majority of the sources are not about the company but about people related to it. And there are also much primary sources in the article. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asteria Aerospace

Asteria Aerospace (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, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:CORPTRIV. References are routine business news. scope_creepTalk 18:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CG Electronics

CG Electronics (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)

Lack of sources to meet notability. Given references are just press release about opening of service centres. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleuger

Pleuger (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. Covered mostly by WP:TRADES. The best article about the company is this but it is more about Alster fountain than the company. WP:SPAs editing history is also problematic. Overall, clearly fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sherline

Sherline (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 reads like an advertisement and does not cite any sources that are not connected to the subject. I could not find any in-depth discussion of the company by reliable, independent sources. Omnigrade (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Heart Productions

Neon Heart 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)

This film production company fails WP:NCORP. The sources are all the organization's own website(s) (not independent), IMDb (WP:USERGENERATED), or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. In this article, and in my WP:BEFORE search, I found no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZL Technologies

ZL Technologies (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 lacks any secondary sources and I was unable to find any with a cursory search. Brandon (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo Motion Control

Elmo Motion Control (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. WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agna Group

Agna Group (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)

Doesn't seem to meet NCORP and I couldn't find much on a WP:BEFORE, but someone more familiar with Albanian sources might have better luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling Zone

Gambling Zone (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)

Only the most passing of mentions or sources that don't mention the company. A BEFORE search didn't turn up anything that meets WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. None of the references discuss the article subject besides Gambling Insider, which is a reprint of a company announcement. ~ A412 talk! 05:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Communications

Unity Communications (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. Sourced to PR announcements (fail WP:ORGIND) and "top X companies" type lists (not WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGTRIV) ~ A412 talk! 18:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company)

AfDs for this article:
Quintessential (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)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 22 closed with no consensus and I decided it was appropriate to relist. Procedural nomination, no opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Delete in previous discussion). While TNT was appropriate for the prior version, the new version is acceptable and has national coverage in Australia. 🄻🄰 13:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Commander Keane says:Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. I did, and see three sources, not four. When I look at the sources, doing what a reader of the encyclopedia who wants to verify the content will do, I run into the Australian Financial Review paywall. I didn't try to follow the instructions that Keane says are seamless, because a reader won't be able to follow those instructions. In particular view of the history of conflict of interest editing, good-faith proponents should have some respect for the concerns of the editors who first objected to a spammy article and now object to an article with one old but significant source and two old invisible sources.

If the proponents can't find any non-paywalled sources, then respect for the core policy of verifiability should be to move this into draft space until the proponents can pass the Heymann test by finding viewable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon As I am sure you are aware, there is absolutely no requirement that sources be non-paywalled in order to satisfy WP:V. In fact, WP:V explicitly saysDo not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. I am more than happy to send you PDFs of any of the sources currently used in the article or any of the other sources I linked above (which I will add to the article as well) if you wish to verify them for yourself. But insisting that all readers should be able to access sources has absolutely no basis in policy. If that was the case, sources like the New York Times and the majority of academic journal articles could not be used for establishing notability either, since many readers will encounter a paywall. But policy is clear that sources should not be rejected just because some readers may not be able to access them. MCE89 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did say I planned to review the sources in more detail if it ever got relisted, so I suppose I better get on with it before this expires. Starting with the best and clearest examples selected by MCE from the previous AFD:
Overall, I'm not really convinced the sources meet NCORP at this point, but I will be adding the other 8 of 15 to my assessment table later, before looking for, e.g., that 2013 The Australian article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thermax

Thermax (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)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like announcing annual/quarterly results, joint ventures, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*astTECS

*astTECS (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 and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ID Medical

ID Medical (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 and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources (e.g., reputable news, academic coverage) to demonstrate notability. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fetch.AI

Fetch.AI (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 has no sources and previous content was filled with non RS and self published sources and was partially written by someone who was paid for it.

As it currently stands, the article would need to be blanked in order to meet verifiability standards. Laura240406 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see that similar articles about the company and CEO have been deleted on the simple Wikipedia:
simple:User_talk:桑斯春德 simple:User talk:Namaste8907
The site has also been deleted over there. Laura240406 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep - This Page has highjacked, now I have reverted to to normal.

Kindly removed the deletion now User:Laura240406.
Kinldy check Fetch.AI . U678 (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)(Nota beneBlocked sockpuppet) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article was hijacked as stated by U678 and the old one seems "good enough" (has secondary sources) Laura240406 (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verdical Group

Verdical Group (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. scope_creepTalk 10:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the page pretty much sounds like a big advertisement. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback! I'm new to writing articles, but feel like this company does a lot for the environment and green building and is certainly notable. I will work on notability and can certainly add more reliable references and rework the article to remove the promotional tone. Jonasstaff (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonasstaff: If you have WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY sources, post them up so everybody can review them. WP:NCORP is very specific on what can be included as a reference. A lot of references that have been added to the article PR and branding. If three decent sources please post them. scope_creepTalk 18:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on removing the promotional tone to the article and adding a mix of sources that are significant, independent, reliable and secondary. I think green building is significant and expanding, and Verdical Group is well known in California, one of the biggest green building hubs. In addition, their Net Zero Conference is also one of the largest in the world. They seem notable, so trying my best to do that without it sounding like an advertisement. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you! Jonasstaff (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It not the fact its promotional although that is part of it, its completly fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 06:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plant Addicts

Plant Addicts (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)

Conducted search, company is not notable enough to meet WP:GNG /WP:NCORP. 4 current sources with 2 from paypal written as paypal marketing case studies. 1 in depth source that may be a RS, but it is difficult to tell. 1 passing mention in a referral marketing landing page hosted on the NBC news domain. i know you're a dog 08:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmanandan Diamonds

Dharmanandan Diamonds (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 and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haveli Investments

Haveli Investments (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. Sourced to funding and acquisition announcements, which are typically not counted toward notability per WP:ORGTRIV. ~ A412 talk! 04:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SciChart

SciChart (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)

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORGSIG due to the lack of reliable independent sources. The only source covering the company is GlobeNewswire, and its article has numerous issues and reads like an advertorial. The content is filled with "peacock-like" language and cites the company itself as a source. — StaniulisTALK 08:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not finding any significant coverage of the company or its product. Available material is largely promotional.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblu

Unblu (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:NORG and lacks evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HighPoint

HighPoint (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)

Promotional, fails WP:NCORP. Half of the references are to the Al Jazeera News homepage or don't mention the article subject. Of the remainder, store opening announcements don't satisfy WP:ORGTRIV. There's one possibly acceptable magazine article, but it's nowhere near enough. ~ A412 talk! 00:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AIC Limited

AIC 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 article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources (e.g., reputable news, academic coverage) to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, relying on limited promotional material AndesExplorer (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AB Custos

AfDs for this article:
AB Custos (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 article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG; existing content relies on trivial or promotional material. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recursion Pharmaceuticals

Recursion Pharmaceuticals (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)

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources and reads more like a promotional piece than a neutral encyclopedia entry. If most of the content comes from press releases or affiliated sources, OatPancake (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Studiosity

Studiosity (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)

lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Most references are either press releases, primary sources. Also this article contains promotional content. OatPancake (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Most references are either press releases, primary sources" There are 10 references included, 6 of them have a DOI and ISSN. The AFR article is not a press release, Julie Hare has 20 years in her field as an education journalist. The article has both critical and pragmatic. I cannot see how this is promotional Derek J Moore (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - as per TurboSuper, the article's matter is notable, but the article itself is not up to standards. Coeusin (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Coeusin thanks again for your interest in my work. It is much appreciated. My challenge to you as an editor is to articulate what you consider standards to be. I took a look though your user page and the articles you have created. Learned lots about some impressive people in Paraguay. Are you related? I had never heard of the term trench newspaper either. Do you have personal links to these topics. Be interested to hear more about you and your connections to these topics. Best Wishes Derek J Moore (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Derek J Moore, thanks for the kind words. Yes, I'm a historian and my focus is usually on Paraguay and neighbouring countries, so to me it feels great to add pages from their beautiful history to the English wiki. On the topic at hand, the way you're writing feels to me as if this was an opinion column in a newspaper or a blog - it doesn't read encyclopedia-like. Look at, for instance, Peer mentoring - it is organized in more or less the same way as you organized Social impact publishing, but sticks to replicating what its sources claim, there is no OR. Another suggestion would be to read WP:!. All this isn't to demerit your work, as I know the effort it takes to write in Wikipedia when we're all so busy with real life. Rather, your contributions are valued, you just have to be more careful with the way you present them. Given a few more tries, I'm sure your articles will become unimpeachable, as will this one (which is the point of the draftify). Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @CoeusinCoeusin. Your encouragement is appreciated! Derek J Moore (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Dalfour France

St. Dalfour France (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)

lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines.​ Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Xrimonciam: What WP:BEFORE did you conduct prior to nomination? i know you're a dog 02:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has enough independent, reliable sources. A quick web search shows many more. WP:N is covered. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warren James Jewellers

Warren James Jewellers (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)

Should be deleted because it lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!vote From an initial review, there appears to be a lack of secondary sources. However, the company is - in my view - notable. It is described in 2006 as "the United Kingdom's largest independent jeweller" in a Nominet ruling. It is described as a national jewellery retailer in a more recent 2023 legal judgment. It's last statutory accounts show a revenue of over £100m per year. I will attempt to complete a more thorough review of secondary sources to support notability. Salicia7 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 01:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Exploration

Arc Exploration (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 does not meet the general notability guideline, and does not meet the notability guidelines for companies. The claim to notability surrounds its involvement with human rights abuses, ending in deaths, in Indonesia. This breaks policy because just because the company was the subject of a (probably not) notable event, does not make it notable. No inherited notability. Next, This company does not have WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED, and the sources don't seem to be WP:RS, but I haven't done a deep dive. No other coverage besides this stuff, where it isn't the main story. This company isn't notable. More, the sources are also from 2011, pretty out of date. We gotta delete this AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2025 (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.

Air Highnesses

Air Highnesses (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)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [32] [33] [34] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Oil

Holiday Oil (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)

Despite the company's regional presence, it lacks coverage from multiple reliable sources Hopkinkse (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humming Airways

Humming Airways (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)

Nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable and secondary sources. WP:TOOSOON also. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Precision Ltd

AfDs for this article:
Cambridge Precision 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)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this company is clearly notable (the awards such as this are independent and significant) and the article is detailed and thorough. The problem here is it looks too promotional and should get an NPOV tag instead of deletion. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Winning an award is unfortunately not significant coverage, it does not address the subject of an article significantly and in detail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BF Borgers

BF Borgers (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)

Contested prod without explanation or improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaForge

AfDs for this article:
IdeaForge (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)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, turnover news, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. I am nominating this page for deletion again, as the last AfD ended without a consensus and took place over two months ago. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find coverage outside of routine business news updates that tend to be wire-style. I would agree that PDF reports from analysts are not reliable even if they are in depth as analysts often have a hidden agenda to convince people to pump or short stocks.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 02:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serviços Executivos Aéreos de Angola

Serviços Executivos Aéreos de Angola (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)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [45] [46] [47] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chippla360: Isn’t there already a consensus to delete this article? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Aviationwikiflight, Don’t be in a hurry as a nominator, more users will drop there comments, it’s just 1 user that participated. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not in a hurry, it’s just that I don’t see why this was relisted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2025 (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.

Shyam Steel

Shyam Steel (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 declined a G5 as an IP had some copyediting, but that might be a sock of the original banned editor, and I don't know enough about Indian companies to determine if the organisation is notable or not. So here's a discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found the subject notable. Sources cited in the article like The Indian Express, Times of India, and several others are bylined, independent, and provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. SATavr (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was ready to go for delete, but there are actual facts and good sources. It certainly needs more work, but it appears to be notable on close examination. Bearian (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep improving. If sockpuppetry and editing by COI IP users continues, I would suggest protecting the article to allow editing only by autoconfirmed users in order to prevent further disruption. The article requires substantial improvement, particularly in the sections beyond the lead, and needs better referencing. However the subject appears to meet notability criteria with sufficient significant and critical coverage available through Google search results.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the Keep !voters have identified any sources that meets WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, that is in-depth "independent content" about the orgnization. "Independent Content" means content which isn't entirely reliant on press releases, announcements, interviews or other content regurtitated from company sources. For example, this Times of India article referred to above is not Independent (as in "independent content") and is not in-depth. It is 7 sentences long and 2 of the sentences are directly attributed to the company, with the rest relying entirely on information provided by the company with no independent commentary or analysis, article fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or this in New Indian Express is a single sentence - that is not in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 20:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP meets at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content". And i can see some references in Google search that pass the criteria. Syam Steel Case Study, Economic Times, The Times of India, Business Today and The Economic Times. B-Factor (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's take a look at this sources in more detail and point out why they fail NCORP - happy to listen to a counter-argument if you disagree
  • This "case study" is written by a Amazon AWS because the topic company uses their services. That isn't "independent content", that's advertising, fails ORGIND
  • This from Economic Times is a press release from the company and fails ORGIND. For example, you can find the exact same article reguritated in different publications such as here, here, here and here.
  • This repeats what the company announced (and acknowledges this in the article text) with no independent content (e.g. commentary/analysis/etc). You can find the same announcement regurgitated here. Fails ORGIND.
  • This is a mere mention with no in-depth information (not even a complete sentence) about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Finally, this article (which is 7 sentences) is also entirely based on company PR and contains no "independent content". Of the seven sentences, four are directly attributed to a company official. You can also find the exact same information in different publications such as this and this (which acknowledges it is PR). Fails ORGIND.
Regurgitated PR does not meet NCORP criteria. I'm happy to take another look if you can point out which paragraphs in which sources you believe contains independent content. HighKing++ 11:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Garage (company) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kastrati Group

Companies proposed deletions

  • Arab American Vehicles (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • East Mediterranean Gas Company (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Egyptalum (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • eSpace (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Herrawi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Ibrachy & Dermarkar (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Mo'men (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Olympic Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Seoudi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Shotmed Paper Industries (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Corona (confectioner) (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Starworld (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
  • Bahgat Group (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Companies&oldid=1289232020"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.