Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 cache watch


Companies deletion

[edit]

The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store

[edit]
The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store (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 is a highly WP:PROMO article about a local pot shop. While the paid editor is to be commended for using AfC for this article, it still fails WP:NCORP for failure to meet WP:ORGCRIT with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. I've included an assessment table below. There's a single source (a design blog) that probably qualifies; nothing else meets all the required criteria.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
No The only people quoted in the article are employees of the subject. Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Routine coverage of financial results is WP:ORGTRIV. Yes
No Appears to be 100% AI-generated promotion No
No Promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
No Cannabis Business Times is a WP:TRADES publication. Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
Yes Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
No Green Market Report is a WP:TRADES publication. Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
Yes Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
Dead link, not archived.
No Highly promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject No Content is not bylined; author is "Honeysuckle Team." Yes
No Dead link No A list of awards at the award sponsor page is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION in context of coverage of other topic. Yes

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Deeplink (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)

Tagged for promotional content since October 2014, and subjectivity since February 2015, the organisation has failed WP:NCORP as presented here and has been discussed twice before at AfD, with reasonably sparse participation. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection Pictures Studio

[edit]
Reflection Pictures Studio (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 have failed to find any independent and secondary coverage of this company, much less anything that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH, just database listings and self-published sources such as social media profiles. I draftified it but it was returned to mainspace, so draftification isn't an option here – besides, I do not think that sources exist at this point.

The only claims to notability made in the article are that the company has worked on notable films and worked together with notable companies – but notability is not inherited. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fried Water Films and Entertainment

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Fried Water Films and Entertainment (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 fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG and no WP:SIGCOV. A company, corporation or organization is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources I could find just list an address and an email address. Couldn't find any films they have ever made. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MoEngage

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
MoEngage (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:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Panorays (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 seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Brock (businessman)

[edit]
Justin Brock (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
Also nominating Draft:Justin Brock (businessman)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Nearly all of the sources are clear paid placement marketing content. The only RS is the coverage by WCBI-TV, but it still reads suspiciously more like a press release than straight local news and isn't directly about the article subject. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Language Monitor

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Global Language Monitor (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)

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Puget Sound

[edit]
Theatre Puget Sound (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)

Hyper-local trade organization of small sphere of influence. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't find sources suggesting WP:NORG is met, in particular WP:AUD. A lot of local regions have local trade organizations. This doesn't particularly stand out as notable and is not significant enough of a global enyclopedia. After analyzing contribution history and seeing phrasing like "Members can also request to be emailed audition announcements automatically as they become available.", public relations editing intended to inflate importance and notability is involved. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culturenet Cymru

[edit]
Culturenet Cymru (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)

Culturenet Cymru was established as a company within the National Library of Wales for the purpose of creating a body that Welsh Government could fund outside of the NLW sponsorship arrangement, with a remit to develop online resources. The company was based in NLW, all the directors and officers were NLW staff, and the employees were subject to NLW regulations. The arrangement was wound up in 2016 and all of the projects were transferred directly into NLW. It was never independently notable, generating a couple of news articles (that I cannot now find) only when one employee, whose contract was terminated, alleged he had fixed an online poll they ran. That coverage did not explore the nature of the company, and my recollection is that the news media were directed to NLW itself. As such this is not notable and does not meet WP:NCORP. I was going to redirect to the NLW page but it is not mentioned there, and I do not feel a mention of the company is due there. Thus a redirect is not possible (no mention on the target page). I am therefore nominating here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epack Prefab

[edit]
Epack Prefab (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)

Epack Prefab

Article about an Indian company which manufactures pre-engineered buildings (PEBs), also known as prefabricated buildings, but does not establish corporate notability. None of the references are significant coverage by independent sources. The references are mostly press releases or paid pieces by the company or interviews with the company, and some of them are about the technology rather than the company.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 livemint.com A corporate profile No Yes ? No
2 Times of India An interview with an officer in the course of an article Yes No. Passing mention. No ?
3 news.abplive.com An interview No Yes ? No
4 businesstoday.in An interview about how prefab building reduces pollution No Not about the company, but about the technology Yes No
5 www.tv9hindi.com An interview about prefab building No Not about the company, but about the technology Yes? No
6 www.zeebiz.com An interview about the company No Yes Yes? No
7 www.etnownews.com An interview with some promotional content No Yes Yes? No
8 auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com A feature story, reads as if it was paid No Yes No. Times of India. No
9 infra.economictimes.indiatimes.com Another feature story, may be paid No Yes No. Times of India. No
10 www.financialexpress.com Reads like a corporate profile No Yes Yes No
11 www.adgully.com An ad in an advertising web site, corporate information No Yes ? No
12 www.constructionworld.in A press release No Yes ? No
13 www.outlookbusiness.com An interview about prefab building No No. Not about the company, but about the technology ? No
14 The Hindu A press release No Don't know. Only able to view lead of article due to paywall, but that was enough to see that it is a press release. Yes No
15 indianinfrastructure.com Article about prefab building. Doesn't mention the company. Yes No. Not about the company, but about the technology Yes No?
16 www.zeebiz.com An article about prefab building. No mention of company. Yes No. Not about the company, but about the technology Yes? No
17 www.business-standard.com A press release about corporate plans. No Yes Yes No

This article was originally created in article space by a now-blocked promotional editor, and moved back to draft space by the blocking administrator. This article appears to be identical to the draftified article by another editor. There are concerns about covert advertising, but it isn't necessary to know whether there is covert advertising, because there isn't coverage that satisfies corporate notability. The author of this version of the article has now been blocked as a sockpuppet.

The draft can be left standing because drafts are not checked for notability. In view of the history of sockpuppetry and conflict of interest, salting is probably in order in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Uttar Pradesh. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject lack notability Per WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’d like to address Reference Number 5. It was mentioned that this is just an interview about prefab building, but after reviewing it carefully, I see it as an independent article. The article discusses EPACK Prefab’s role in the prefabricated construction sector. In it, the director of EPACK Prefab highlights how prefabrication allows for up to 90% of the work to be completed in a factory, which significantly speeds up the construction process. From my perspective, this is more than an interview—it’s an article that explores prefab construction and specifically references Epack Prefab company's name. Suhailjav (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’d also like to address Reference Number 1. It is mentioned that this is an interview, but after a thorough review, I believe it’s actually an independent article. The article covers the growth of warehousing in Visakhapatnam and includes references to EPACK Prefab’s contributions within this sector. It highlights the company’s involvement in prefab construction for warehousing, showing how our solutions support this expanding industry. From my perspective, this is more than an interview—it’s an article that provides insight into warehousing growth while specifically mentioning EPACK Prefab’s role. Suhailjav (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reference Number 10. It was noted that this reference 'reads like a corporate profile,' but upon reviewing it, I see it as an independent article focused on EPACK Prefab’s #WasteToWorth campaign. The article discusses the company’s sustainability and recycling initiatives rather than promoting its profile. It specifically highlights EPACK Prefab’s efforts to encourage eco-friendly practices within the prefabrication industry. In my view, this piece serves as a report on the campaign and EPACK Prefab’s commitment to sustainable practices, rather than a corporate profile. Suhailjav (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This may be eligible for WP:G4 as it closely resembles the page deleted in July following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPACK Prefab. Yuvaank (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DesignTech Systems

[edit]
DesignTech Systems (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:CORP. Only 1 article links to this. A search for sources found company's involvement in a skill development scam but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Press / VIP

[edit]
Automatic Press / VIP (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)

Was unable to find any sources to this publishing house to show notability. GamerPro64 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock's magazine

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Comstock's magazine (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 created by an editor with an initial undisclosed conflict of interest (they have since identified themselves as a paid freelancer), and appears to be solely maintained by that editor (who continues to engage in a business relationship with the organization). Company also fails the notability test. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Kids Africa Foundation

[edit]
Kings Kids Africa Foundation (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. Lots of blogs and mentions but nothing significant in reliable sources that would meet the WP:ORGCRIT standard. CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stoxkart

[edit]
Stoxkart (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)

Sources given are not indication of notability: the first two are from the company itself, while the third repeats a company statement, and the last two are instances of its CEO being quoted in media for unrelated topics. Doing a quick WP:BEFORE, I can find more company announcements/press releases (thehindubusinessline.com, entrepreneur.com), and this article by techinasia.com which still quotes the company's statements to some extent but not as fully as the others. Still, not looking like it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon, no reliable resources - Herodyswaroop (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThrough News

[edit]
BreakThrough News (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)

BreakThrough News is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Most WP:RS which non-trivially discuss BTN explain that it is an appendage of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, to which this page previously redirected. I support reverting the page to a mere redirect. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users: @إيان: @Superb Owl:. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's notable; it has about 897K subscribers on Youtube, 500k on TikTok, 250k followers on Instagram, and 160k on Twitter/X, and its coverage has been embedded in articles on legacy media such as The Independent.
The main problem with redirecting to Party for Socialism and Liberation is that it's the POV of the The Daily Beast and The Jerusalem Post, two sources most editors consider biased or opinionated.
إيان (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Echoing يان's concerns, the subject obviously meets notability criteria. And with respect to votes to redirect: it's clear that redirecting to PSL would be a violation of NPOV from the outset (even before considering the sourcing, as explained by إيان).
On that point: if BTN doesn't disclose its funding sources (as seems to be the primary issue), then that should be explained in this article, using a variety of sources.
I can think of several reasons Wikipedia users deserve to be able to search for and find an article on BTN (this article) independent of information about PSL. For example, any discussion of putative links between PSL and BTN seem most appropriately discussed in the BTN article; depending on the nature of the particular link, it's possible that such a discussion would be considered irrelevant in the PSL article (and therefore not persisted).
Separately, but related: it is true that this article needs more content and more sources; but also, the related articles suffer from several deficits that likely make it more difficult for just anyone to come along and improve its content (i.e., by seeking related information in sources used in related articles). Daily Beast and JPost aside, it appears that the article about Neville Roy Singham is affected by a mixture of sourcing that includes dubious sources like New Lines Magazine, published by a think tank hosted by an essentially illusory university (FXUA, with fewer than 50 students) whose president is also the founder and president of that think tank.
In short: there appears to be an opinion-laundering war going on, and editors need to be able to keep these articles distinct in order to avoid hijacking attempts by any of the groups that might be involved.
--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see no reason why this article should be kept at this time, it lacks enough information to meet notability per WP:GNG The article only contain information about the founders, what next? What's the significance? The creator should perhaps fill up these gaps to keep the article. I can't find none myself, There is also limited WP:RS. Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems clear that WP:GNG is satisfied by citations of BTN's reporting in The Guardian, Fortune, and Al Jazeera, among others. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I checked the social media handles, website, and sources of this news company, but I didn't find anything notable. Baqi:) (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see any significant coverage. Mentions in publications would not be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of that policy do you think applies to this article? إيان (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added mentions in The Guardian, The Independent, and Al Jazeera. إيان (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And discussion in the following book published by Routledge:
    • Bergman, Tabe; Hearns-Branaman, Jesse Owen, eds. (2024). Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine. Routledge studies in media, communication and politics. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-032-55705-2.
    إيان (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking in WP:SIGCOV, a merge might be acceptable too, but I do not know where to. Andre🚐 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems clear that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied by the two articles in The Daily Beast, as well as the book Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added yet another citation in Fortune, in addition to the previously mentioned discussion in the book Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine, the articles specifically about it in The Daily Beast and Jerusalem Post, and citations in major publications such as The Guardian, The Independent, Al Jazeera, etc. Those ǃvoting to delete citing WP:SPAM or WP:SIGCOV have not offered any explanation why they think these apply in light of this substantial coverage. إيان (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Watch Company

[edit]
European Watch 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)

The company is not notable (NCORP) the sources are paid and of bad quality not being reliable and independent with deep coverage of the company; 25lucky (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yab Moung Records

[edit]
Yab Moung Records (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a record label, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for record labels. As always, record labels are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:CORP criteria -- but except for a couple of reliable source hits that briefly glance off the record label's existence while being principally about the overall music scene in Cambodia, which aren't substantive enough to pass NCORP but don't add up to enough to claim that it would earn any sort of "a high enough volume of shorter sources can still satisfy GNG" pass, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, such as YouTube videos and blogs and Bandcamp and its own self-published content about itself.
As it may have better sourcing in Khmer that I'm not linguistically equipped to find, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Khmer is able to find more coverage in that language than I've found in English, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Malaysia

[edit]
List of cinemas in Malaysia (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)

Whole list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOR. Only one cinema has an article and most entries listed are cinema chains with cinemas attached to shopping malls. All references appear to links to the cinema's official website. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing remarkably informational or navigational about this list. It's a directory of run-of-the-mill movie cinemas. The only sources are official websites to the cinema franchises. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing </nowiki>remarkably informational or navigational (emphasis mine) or nothing informational or navigational? Because if it the first, it's a highly subjective comment. Indeed, in my opinion, it helps navigate in the category and articles about cinema theatres in the world and offers informations about cinema in Malaysia that could seem of use. Did you open the book I mentioned, by any chance? Cleanup (sources, cuts) may be done later and is probably needed, yes. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird International

[edit]
Bluebird International (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:NOTPROMO and fails to meet WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new sources to the article, from 24.hu, index.hu, hvg.hu and others, please check. I am not an experienced at editing wikipedia, please guide how to improve the article so it meets WP:NCORP nad WP:NOTPROMO. Thanks! Nosret Hocane (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic & General

[edit]
Domestic & General (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)

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep

I would argue that Domestic & General is newsworthy in its own right in particular when opening new offices and through its CEO Matthew Crummack. Not in the sense that the business inherits notability through Crummack, but that his decisions for the business are often of note in the media.

It is a global company that employs over 3000 people and partners with hundreds of manufacturers to provide appliance warranty to 1 in 3 homes in the UK. I understand that ubiquity in homes does not necessarily mean 'notability' but I would ask that some of the references sources are revisited as "reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it".

Any articles that have been correctly flagged as being biased have been removed from this draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) — Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dragon Dynasty

[edit]
Dragon Dynasty (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 don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

[edit]
Challenger 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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

[edit]
Blue Underground (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)

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

[edit]
List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment (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)

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --woodensuperman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.

(Bloody disgusting!: https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3800174/anchor-bay-entertainment-label-resurrects-with-new-horror/)

See list of articles in Variety; https://variety.com/t/anchor-bay-entertainment/

the company’s trademark to reboot it and release genre films and cult favorites, after Anchor Bay was included in Starz’s 2016 sale to Lionsgate.

(Variety; https://variety.com/2024/film/news/anchor-bay-entertainment-cursed-in-baja-1236078418/

The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.
Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.
Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --woodensuperman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Enterprises

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Adani Enterprises (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 is essentially a fork of Adani Group and provides no new information. The past AfD had only two votes and one of them was a sock and another an UPE who have been blocked, refer to this for more information. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA and they don't say why do we need an "Adani Enterprises" when we have Adani Group. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A better and deeper source evaluation is needed on the presented ones. Kindly note that keep !votes should provide proper rationale supported by reliable sources denoting notability and SIGCOV. Additionally, kindly address the need of the article when another similarly titled article already exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to address Dympies's comment above which seems to suggest we discount the sources presented by me on the basis of WP:NEWSORGINDIA: The Financial Times is not even an Indian news organization to begin with and is widely-regarded as one of the highest-quality sources for business-related topics. The Ken is pretty credible too as there is no evidence of paid reporting by them. The HDFC Securities analyst report satisfies WP:LISTED. These sources, along with it being part of NIFTY 50, establish this company's notability independent of the parent group umbrella. It is worth considering WP:SIZE of the Adani Group page before advocating for a merge/redirect. I'm also yet to see any evidence of content fork besides sweeping assertions. Yuvaank (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is a reasonable solution to deleting a bad article that is a fork of a company - but is also a real subsidiary. We don’t need articles about every subsidiary of even the largest companies. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - One more article on the same topic is unnecessary. Agletarang (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Net Applications

[edit]
Net Applications (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)

not notable per this BretiPoaf1 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omspace

[edit]
Omspace (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:ORG and WP:GNG - The9Man Talk 18:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May you explicate why you believe that this article fails WP:ORG? In the article alone I see three sources (1,2,4) that I believe to satisfy significance, reliability, and secondary.Arguably, the sources are quite recent, but I believe that aged sources are only the requirement for events (WP:EVENT). Pygos (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trasna

[edit]
Trasna (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; fails WP:NCORP. Coverage available (both in article and in WP:BEFORE search does not meet the WP:ORGCRIT -- instead, it's all a mix of primary sources, trivial mentions, press releases, niche WP:TRADES publications and coverage that would be excluded as WP:ORGTRIV. No reasonable redirect option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyGlamm

[edit]
MyGlamm (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:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO and WP:ROUTINE. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more opinions on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth & Nail Records discography

[edit]
Tooth & Nail Records discography (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 don't believe it passes WP:LSC WP:NLIST., because this is essentially a product "catalog" of a record label, which is a publisher. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Record label discography lists are useful and common. Since the label itself is notable, I'd argue the set of releases is notable. Since it is too large to roll into the main article, it makes sense to retain as a standalone list. glman (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my hasty thoughts for more reflection. glman (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring my original opinion. glman (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we allow things on basis of one person saying "useful" there will be someone saying anything is useful. We'll end up with a "list of Signature Select condiments" and end up with an exhaustive list of their products with Safeway.com as the reference, or the "items sold at Home Depot" and end up with exhaustive list of SKUs. Some hole in the wall record labels are not held sacred over else and I think we shouldn't have product catalogs of this nature. This is going to cause a trend of starting a stand alone list for unacceptable contents to misuse Wikipedia as a webhost. Graywalls (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear difference between a list of "condiments" or "items sold at Home Depot" and of albums. A discography of a record label that has existed for over 30 years, has major distribution deals, and has signed many notable artists is objectively not the same as a list of UPC items at the grocery store, nor is it the same as a minor indie label listing their releases. glman (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: well none of the ke.p proponents have commented with or added refs. Graywalls (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I cannot find anything talking about the list as a group so left a vote. For the record, I do not advocate for keeping lists because of "userfulness." That is why we have categories, navigational boxes, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Generally for publishers that do not have significant roles in the creation of creative works outside of funding, distribution and promotion, a catalog of their works is overkill, unless there is decent sourcing that discuss the whole of the catalog in a significant fashion. Eg we would never list every book published by Penguin, but we may do it for a smaller publisher that gained a reputation for promoting offbeat works. It is more appropriate to lists artists represented by the label even if the artist didn't exclusively release through thst label. Masem (t) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily agree that this should be the standard for the inclusion of a discography, but I'd argue that Tooth & Nail, in fact, meets it. The label had a specific vision for the kind of music and culture it was trying to promulgate, and there are identifiable production styles common to similar-genre bands who recorded for it. This article provides a starting point for understanding the label's profound impact on its milieu; many book-length resources on Christian rock and/or emo and metalcore music published after the late 2000s also inevitably come around to discussing the label in some detail. Chubbles (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flatiron School

[edit]
Flatiron School (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)

Run of the mill bootcamp, coverage is all highly routine and of questionable independence. I can see maybe one source that's barely usable, but the rest are far short of what we'd need for NCORP, and we definitely need multiple. It might be possible to redirect this somewhere, but I can't think of any plausible targets. Also probably going to nom Chester Ismay later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Eisenmann, Thomas; AlQahtani, Halah (January 2017). "Flatiron School". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 2024-07-21. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      This is a 19-page Harvard Business Review case study of Flatiron School. The abstract notes: "In late 2016, the founders of Flatiron School, a startup offering 12-week coding bootcamps, are formulating their growth strategy. Their new online-only program has matched the excellent job placement results for their in-person bootcamps. Should Flatiron shift investment to aggressively expand online or grow online and in-person bootcamps in tandem? Should they pursue opportunities to sell online programs to universities and corporations, in addition to their direct-to-consumer offer?"

    2. Mitchell, Josh (2016-08-12). "Coding Boot Camps Attract Tech Companies". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-06-18. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "In a graffiti-splashed classroom in lower Manhattan, students are learning to write computer code at a private academy whose methods and results have caught the eye of Silicon Valley and the Obama administration. The Flatiron School’s 12-week course costs $15,000, but earns students no degree and no certificate. What it does get them, at an overwhelming rate, is a well-paying job. Nearly everyone graduates, and more than nine in 10 land a job within six months at places like Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Kickstarter. Average starting salary: $74,447. ... At Flatiron, students spend 10 to 12 hours a day for 12 weeks on projects such as building a duplicate version of online-review site Yelp from scratch. The school’s staff calls tech firms throughout the week, both to promote their graduates’ abilities and to learn employers’ constantly shifting needs, including what software they use."

    3. Johnson, Sydney (2017-10-20). "Who's Holding Coding Bootcamp Accountability Accountable?". EdSurge. Archived from the original on 2024-08-20. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "That showed this week when New York-based Flatiron School, a coding bootcamp, was fined $375,000 by the state’s attorney general for misleading advertising and operating without a license. Flatiron is hardly the first bootcamp to come under fire for falsely advertising its outcomes. What makes this a particularly ironic case, though, is that Flatiron is part of the Quality Assurance Taskforce, a consortium of 25 organizations that include non-profit universities, investors and coding bootcamps and has a stated goal “to drive industry-wide accountability and transparency” for non-traditional learning providers. ... Regardless, Flatiron’s membership in an accountability program didn’t render it immune from its own violations and a resulting inquiry by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman."

    4. Lohr, Steve (2017-08-24). "As Coding Boot Camps Close, the Field Faces a Reality Check". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-08-25. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "The Flatiron School in New York may have discovered one path. Founded in 2012, Flatiron has a single campus in downtown Manhattan and its main offering is a 15-week immersive coding program with a $15,000 price tag. More than 95 percent of its 1,000 graduates there have landed coding jobs. In late 2015, the co-founders, Adam Enbar and Avi Flombaum, decided to try an online-only offering, Learn.co. The tuition is $1,500 a month. Students go at their own pace, and on average complete the course in seven months, putting in about 800 hours. Tuition charges stop after eight months — and there are instructors online 16 hours a day for help and advice. ... The school was the subject of a Harvard Business School case study, published this year, which found that the early success of the online-only course has “expanded strategic options for Flatiron.” But just how much is uncertain. “It’s pretty clear that they can do it at the scale they have,” said Thomas Eisenmann, a professor and lead author of the study. “What’s not clear is whether it can go from a hundred or a few hundred to thousands and thousands.”"

    5. Swarns, Rachel L. (2014-06-23). "Creating Unexpected Opportunities in a Recovering Economy: Flatiron School Program Expands New York's Web Developer Ranks". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-04-26. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "Then a friend invited her to a meet-up for computer programmers at the Flatiron School in Manhattan. ... At the Flatiron School, which trains people in software coding, Ms. Eady met female programmers and programmers of all shades. She met musicians who were coding, finance guys who were coding. She met creative people who talked about building things — new apps, new websites, new ways to tell stories. ... When she discovered that the city was offering fellowships for people interested in learning coding at Flatiron, she jumped at the chance. So did about 1,200 other applicants. The program is run by the New York City Department of Small Business Services, which contracted with Flatiron to offer a free, 22-week course to New Yorkers who earned less than $50,000 and had never worked as web developers. (The course normally costs $12,000.) Twenty-eight people made the final cut, including Ms. Eady."

    6. Mullin, Joe (2017-10-19). "One of the original coding schools must pay $375k over employment claims: New York's Flatiron School was ordered to alter website, hit with a hefty fine". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2023-06-10. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "Flatiron's application for licensing its second campus, opened in 2013, didn't go smoothly. In June 2016, Flatiron reached out by e-mail to inquire about its second license. New York's Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision responded two months later with a cease-and-desist letter telling the school to stop operations. Flatiron didn't stop operations while it was getting its licensing in order, so the Bureau held that the school's second campus operated from 2013 until 2017 without a license."

    7. Thompson, Clive (2019). Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World. New York: Penguin Books. pp. 352–353. ISBN 978-0-7352-2058-4. Retrieved 2024-10-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Avi Flombaum is trying to figure out one of these new routes. He's the founder of the Flatiron School, a boot camp that takes people and, for about $15,000 in tuition, puts them through an intense 15-week training curriculum. When I visit their campus in the Wall Street district of Manhattan, about 200 students sit at long tables, working in pairs as they puzzle through the nuances of Ruby. One student is sketching out a snippet of code for his partner with a dry-erase marker, writing right on the table itself. ... He wound up getting a bunch of his students jobs, and thought, hmm, maybe he could scale this up. He and a partner launched the Flatiron School in 2012, and since then it has graduated almost 2,000 students. Flatiron is, like many boot camps, renowned for being an absolute cram of knowledge. Before admission, students are encouraged to complete a free 15-week online course that introduces them to the basics of Ruby or JavaScript. While they're in session, many stay late into the evening, working on projects with colleagues. About half of the students are women, and most are young, including students who finished college but decided coding was a better bet for employment than the subject they majored in; others had been in the workforce but didn't like their job and wanted to switch careers. One recent student came from a pig farm in Texas."

    8. Sprinkle, Timothy (2015). Kelley, Erin (ed.). Screw the Valley: A Coast-to-Coast Tour of America's New Tech Startup Culture: New York, Boulder, Austin, Raleigh, Detroit, Las Vegas, Kansas City. Dallas: BenBella Books. pp. 82–83. ISBN 978-1-940363-30-1. Retrieved 2024-10-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "That's the approach that Avi Flombaum is taking at his coding startup, the Flatiron School, which moved from the Silicon Alley district near Union Square to the southern tip of Manhattan in late 2013 as part of a city-backed program to bring hipper, more growth-oriented companies to the Financial District. After working on a series of startups, he created the Flatiron School in 2012 after teaching a few programming classes on Skillshare (which is run by a friend) and helping out at General Assembly. The whole operation is self-funded and it charges about $10,000 for a three-month, full-time course that promises to teach normal people how to code, regardless of their background."

    9. Kessler, Sarah (2013-04-18). "How Flatiron School Makes New Programmers–In Just 12 Weeks". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "In September, he cofounded something between the two extremes. Called the Flatiron School, the program offers 12 weeks of full-time, intensive instruction (plus pre-work) “designed to turn you into a web developer” for a $10,000 tuition fee. The school’s only classroom, located in a walk-up near Madison Square Park in New York City, looks more like a startup. Some students work at Ikea desks pushed together to create one long table. Others sit on a sofa with their laptops. About 80% of the class has a background in either writing, music, or photography. Two are pregnant. One is a former professional poker player. Another is a founder of SparkNotes."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Flatiron School to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm locked out of my library account because I didn't reset my password when they asked me to (oops, though I really do wish they didn't make me do it every three months) so it might be a few days before I can look at the Harvard Business Review article, but I had seen the news articles, and especially the Fast Company one seemed pretty rubbish to me (like, in terms of meeting SIRS. I'm sure it's interesting to people outside of that context). It's mostly quotes, the genre is more in line with a human-interest story, so while it does have a little bit of secondary content, I don't see it meeting the other three criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Harvard Business Review study is pretty convincing on its own. It gets plenty of coverage in books, largely as case studies, but those are still significant. Newspaper sources need some careful evaluation, but the sources provided by Cunard are multiple, include articles in papers of record, and appear to be independent. There is secondary information here, and so GNG is quite clearly met, and these reviews are good enough to meat WP:ORGDEPTH too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A critical assessment of Cunard's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive.com.au

[edit]
Drive.com.au (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)

Suggesting a redirect to Fairfax Media § 2014 to 2018, with potentially some content merged to that section. I cannot find anything else useful, and keeping in mind that The Sydney Morning Herald is not independent of Fairfax, I find it unlikely this would benefit from a standalone page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sokudo Electric

[edit]
Sokudo Electric (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 article from an SMM company using press releases, interviews, product and facility launches, and other announcements. No coverage in reliable sources. No coverage in independent reliable sources, fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, these coverages are all reliable, they are posted on reliable media sources like news medias, print magazines. please feel free to check all the links before making a decision. Pitchonepr SMM (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at the very least Delete the sections of the article that are just listing products, but the article as a whole reads somewhat promotional. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLeaning keep. I cannot evaluate the reliability of most of the sources used in the article but some of them sources that look alright, like Rest of World and News18. The topic of the article seems notable. Jeraxmoira, are you saying that all of the sources are unreliable? Can you explain why you think so? Needless to say all the promotional fluff that is not supported by sources or is supported only by the company's press releases should be removed. Alaexis¿question? 22:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the proper process for dealing with the WP:COI has not been followed by Pitchonepr SMM, I urge them to disclose their conflict of interest immediately (full disclosure, I came here because asked me a question at my talk page). Alaexis¿question? 22:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, the Rest of World article is an interview and the News18 article is a press release. They do not pass the WP:SIRS check that is conducted for articles about organizations and companies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira, yeah, you're right about these two sources. And what about this piece? It seems to address the subject directly and in depth. Alaexis¿question? 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good source with a byline and it also seems to be a magazine feature. But, I wouldn’t be okay with it, as it’s an interview that would fail the WP:SIRS check. i.e., it is not completely independent of the article subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my !vote to Leaning Keep. I understand your points but still think that this topic is notable. Alaexis¿question? 08:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale seems like WP:PPOV to me, as the author of the article reached out to you earlier through the mentorship module. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just reminding participants that a promotional tone and unencyclopedic sections can be edited out, and are not a valid reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Groww (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)

Not a G4, but no indication the issues raised at the prior AfDs have been addressed. A search is hard due to the name, but no indication of N:CORP. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to me leaving a !vote, I am hoping you can point out the WP:THREE you feel meet the guidelines outlined in WP:ORGCRIT? I have started going through the references but there is a lot of churnalism and routine announcements so hoping as the creator you can point me in the right direction. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41 There are many reliable sources but I will point out these sources to claim notability:

--Curvasingh (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Groww is India's largest stock broker right now. There is no point in nominating this page for deletion. Saura376 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC) — Saura376 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources mentioned above may be helpful in determining whether they count or establish notability of the company in question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Forbes India is not Forbes. It must be evaluated with care. This reference was previously assessed and I would agree with that assessment. The reference looks like it was written by the company itself based on the details information, quotes, and use of images and infographics that are promotional to the company.
2. LiveMint - I would not consider this source reliable at all. I can go to Fiverr or Upwork and pay to have my own article written for the publication. Not saying this one is, but do not trust a publication that doesn't always differentiate between paid press and organic press. If it is found to be reliable, this particular reference is similar to the Forbes India one above. Tons of quotes and graphics for the company.
3. Times of India - This is a reference published since the last AfD discussion. Clearly falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable.
4. Forbes India - This one is similar to the other Forbes India reference. However, the promotional tone appears to be from the publication's own research as to why the company won the award. It also appeared in print version so I would say this would be within the rhelm of ORGCRIT.
5. LiveMint - Same as 2.
6. Economic Times - Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and the first sentence starts with the location the news is coming from, indicating a press release or churnalism.
7. Business Today - Interview which would not meet ORGCRIT
8. Money Control - Same as LiveMint.

I can only see one source that would probably meet ORGCRIT. I also see a heavy push by SPA's and likely COI editors in the previous and current editing. If kept, the page will need cleaned up for NPOV. If deleted, salting may be in order to save time of volunteer editors. If anyone wants to discuss the individual sources assessed above please do so as I may have missed something and will gladly look at any additional information. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 Here is one article from Forbes, not Forbes India -> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/investing/groww-vs-zerodha/ --Curvasingh (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FORBESCON. Source is not usable for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41 There are many sources from the The Hindu also:

--Curvasingh (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:ROUTINE. We need sources passing WP:ORGCRIT. Please review that guideline and let me know what sources meet it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41 I am not sure how you are passing some information as routine coverage. In some earlier sources, there was extensive profile coverage of Groww. I am starting to think now that few Wikipedia reviewers has some inherent bias and that is why there is Criticism of Wikipedia, which is also why Wikipedia has been involved in lawsuits:-> https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-access-to-ani-defamation-case-page-following-delhi-hc-order/article68778075.ece

The classification of some credible information as non-reliable is not good. Even then I will provide another source from Business Standard :-> https://www.business-standard.com/companies/start-ups/financial-services-startup-groww-moves-domicile-to-india-from-the-us-124051000028_1.html --Curvasingh (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casting WP:ASPERSIONS certainly does not support your keep !vote contention. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket FM (platform)

[edit]
Pocket FM (platform) (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:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the platform has demonstrated notability through its significant user base, international expansion, and coverage in reputable sources, establishing it as a notable player in the digital audio streaming industry --Moarnighar (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered notable on Wikipedia, it's not enough to be popular in terms of user base; there needs to be significant coverage from trustworthy and independent sources. If the coverage isn’t thorough or the sources aren't reliable, the platform's importance in the digital audio streaming industry might be exaggerated. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment table here might be of great use. Need to get to the bottom of if the sourcing is routine or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source Assessment Table

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/pocket-fm-funding-audio-series-1235947135/ Yes Yes Trivial coverage on funding ? Unknown
https://restofworld.org/2024/elevenlabs-pocket-fm/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/lightspeed-finalizing-leading-80m-plus-funding-in-pocket-fm/ Yes No Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH Trivial coverage on funding ✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/pocket-fm-to-start-ip-licensing-of-its-content/article65523336.ece Yes Yes Trivial coverage on service offerings ? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/sme-pocket-fmaudio-streaming-service-storytelling-that-powers-binge-listening-2690554/ Yes Yes Trivial coverage on service offerings ? Unknown
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/pocket-fm-to-invest-40-mn-to-expand-online-reading-library-11708408857053.html Yes Yes Trivial coverage on funding ? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-pocket-fms-india-arm-registers-647-revenue-growth-losses-contracts-by-56-in-fy-2023-3355318/ Yes Yes Trivial coverage on the amount of revenue ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do editors agree with the source assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the source asssessment. Not every TechCrunch article is significant coverage but this one is. Combined with Variety this looks like a keep. And just as an additional point of reference $160MM in revenue is a lot, this is not a random just-launched startup that happened to get trade mentions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mold-Tek Packaging

[edit]
Mold-Tek Packaging (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 due to insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Additionally, the content appears promotional and lacks critical analysis, making it better suited for consolidation within a broader article Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be a speedy keep per WP:LISTED? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liangyou Group

[edit]
Liangyou 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. No reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Previous WP:PROD concerns still not addressed after many years. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Luo, Yuyue 罗嵛月 (2015-04-15). "良友食用油曾经是上海老大，如今却输给金龙鱼" [Liangyou's edible oil was once the leader in Shanghai, but now it has lost to Golden Dragon Fish]. China Business News [zh] (in Chinese). Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via China Business Network.

      This article has a lot of negative coverage about Liangyou's business failures and also covers the company's history. The article notes: "据《第一财经日报》记者多方了解，这家2011年总资产已达154亿元、全年销售收入165亿元的老牌国企，这几年却不尽如人意。食用油是良友的主营业务之一，良友集团原领导曾有“海狮兴，则良友兴”的论断，一位资深业内人士如此告诉本报记者。现实非常残酷，上海作为良友的总部，占尽“主场”便利，良友不仅输给了跨国粮油品牌金龙鱼，在央企品牌福临门和台湾品牌多力冲击下，良友也应对乏力，市场份额下滑。"

      From Google Translate: "According to the reporter of China Business News, this old state-owned enterprise, which had total assets of 15.4 billion yuan in 2011 and annual sales revenue of 16.5 billion yuan, has not been satisfactory in recent years. Edible oil is one of Liangyou's main businesses. The former leader of Liangyou Group once said that "if Sea Lion prospers, Liangyou will prosper", a senior industry insider told our reporter. The reality is very cruel. As the headquarters of Liangyou, Shanghai has the convenience of "home court". Liangyou not only lost to the multinational grain and oil brand Golden Dragon Fish, but also failed to cope with the impact of the central enterprise brand Fortune and the Taiwanese brand Duoli, and its market share declined."

      The article notes: "市场人士分析，良友食用油售价低，是因为作为国企，担负了上海市平抑物价的责任，企业品牌投入资金相对较少。这导致良友在市场竞争中非常不利。"

      From Google Translate: "Market analysts analyzed that the low price of Liangyou cooking oil is because, as a state-owned enterprise, it bears the responsibility of stabilizing prices in Shanghai, and the company's brand investment is relatively small. This puts Liangyou at a great disadvantage in market competition."

    2. "中国经济 '99" [China Economy '99]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). 1999. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "公司建于 1998 年 10 月,目前已开业 100 家“良友便利”连锁店。未来发展目标是三年内建成 300 家连锁便利店。上海良友集团是根据国务院《关于进一步深化粮食流通体制改革的决定》精神,经中共上海市委、市人民政府批准,以国有骨干粮食企业为主体,于 1998 年 8 月 8日成立。上海良友(集团)有限公司是上海良友集团的核心企业,注册资金 17 亿元人民币。主要经营:粮油批发、加工,资产经营,实业投资,房地产开发经营及物业管理,科研开发,咨询服务,国内贸易等。下辖 7 个全资子公司, 2 个控股子公司。上海良友集团承担上海粮食市场流通主渠道任务。"

      From Google Translate: "The company was established in October 1998 and currently has 100 "Liangyou Convenience" chain stores in operation. The future development goal is to build 300 chain convenience stores within three years. Shanghai Liangyou Group was established on August 8, 1998, based on the spirit of the State Council's "Decision on Further Deepening the Reform of the Grain Circulation System", approved by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Municipal People's Government, with state-owned backbone grain enterprises as the main body. Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. is the core enterprise of Shanghai Liangyou Group with a registered capital of RMB 1.7 billion. Main business: grain and oil wholesale, processing, asset management, industrial investment, real estate development and operation and property management, scientific research and development, consulting services, domestic trade, etc. It has 7 wholly-owned subsidiaries and 2 holding subsidiaries. Shanghai Liangyou Group undertakes the main channel task of Shanghai grain market circulation."

    3. Li, Jianzhi 李建致 (2019). "沐浴春风成长壮大——上海良友集团二十年之发展 认领" [Growing Strong in the Spring Breeze: The 20-Year Development of Shanghai Liangyou Group]. 商业企业 [Commercial Enterprise] (in Chinese). No. 6. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via CQVIP [zh].

      The abstract notes: "1998年,上海良友(集团)有限公司成立,从此粮油企业和职工,真正步人市场竞争的大海;2000年,改革、调整和转型,良友企业焕发出新的生机;2015年,联合重组,打造实力,良友集团风华正茂,昂首阔步。"

      From Google Translate: "In 1998, Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. was established. Since then, grain and oil enterprises and employees have truly stepped into the sea of ​​market competition; in 2000, reform, adjustment and transformation, Liangyou Enterprises have regained new vitality; in 2015, joint reorganization and strength building, Liangyou Group is in its prime and strides forward."

    4. Liu, Lijing 刘丽靓 (2015-05-08). "光明食品集团与上海良友集团联合重组" [Bright Food Group and Shanghai Liangyou Group Jointly Restructured]. China Securities Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "上海良友集团是上海从事粮食经营的国有企业集团，承担着政府委托或指定的职能，为保障上海粮食安全和供给稳定服务。其经营领域涵盖粮油加工、仓储物流、便利连锁、粮油贸易、进出口业务、实业投资等。集团下属20家全资、控股子公司和13家参股公司，以及国家级粮油制品检验检测中心和上海市级集团技术中心。经过多年发展，旗下拥有海狮、乐惠、雪雀（福新）、味都、三添、友益等上海市著名商标和上海名牌产品，主要粮油产品上海市场占有率名列前茅。"

      From Google Translate: "Shanghai Liangyou Group is a state-owned enterprise group engaged in grain business in Shanghai. It undertakes the functions entrusted or designated by the government to serve the guarantee of Shanghai's grain security and stable supply. Its business areas cover grain and oil processing, warehousing and logistics, convenience chain, grain and oil trade, import and export business, industrial investment, etc. The group has 20 wholly-owned and holding subsidiaries and 13 joint-stock companies, as well as a national grain and oil product inspection and testing center and a Shanghai-level group technology center. After years of development, it owns Shanghai's famous trademarks and Shanghai famous brand products such as Sea Lion, Lehui, Snow Bird (Fuxin), Weidu, Santian, and Youyi. The market share of its main grain and oil products in Shanghai ranks among the top."

    5. "日本九州农协与上海签订2000吨日本米出口协议" [The Kyushu Agricultural Cooperative in Japan has signed an export agreement for 2,000 tons of Japanese rice with Shanghai]. 中经网 [China Economic Net] (in Chinese). 2007-12-04.

      The article notes: "报道称，承销这批大米的是在中国具有大米专卖权的“良友集团”旗下的“上海良友公司”。"

      From Google Translate: "The report states that the underwriter of this batch of rice is "Shanghai Liangyou Company," which is under the "Liangyou Group," a company that has exclusive rights to sell rice in China."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shanghai Liangyou Group (simplified Chinese: 上海良友集团有限公司; traditional Chinese: 上海良友集團有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources found by Cunard added to the article, then I’m going along with a Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a further review of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şifa University

[edit]
Şifa University (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 can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:
    • University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)
    • etc.
    What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Records (independent)

[edit]
Giant Records (independent) (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30+ years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:
    1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
    2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Reconrabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear if there are objections or support for the Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cinemas

[edit]
Scott Cinemas (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)

Failing to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are currently primary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Companies proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Companies&oldid=1256592124"