Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

WP:DS/CO

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:

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.
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.

Archived discussions (starting from 2015) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Companies deletion

TVS Credit System

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

Fails WP:NORG. A single source in the article and there no available WP:RS sources out there. Mekomo (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16 Entertainment

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

Its founder Alex Wilhelm is notable, but this company of his has no significant coverage in WP:RS. Hmr (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Hmr (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xplor Technologies

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

Don't see how this company passes WP:NCORP. The sources are all WP:ORGTRIV, articles about its founder but not WP:SIGCOV of the company, WP:TRADES publications, WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, and that's also what I find in my WP:BEFORE search. I'm not seeing any coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH and thus passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connect2India

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are mainly unreliable, mentions, or routine. CNMall41 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chugh, LLP

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is strange since this is a US firm. Likely paid churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty much "churnalism". ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Property24

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

Possibly fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appreciate all the review work that happens around here. Putting my vote in to rather retain the article and improve it by adding more sources and info. I think by nature of this being a major arm of one of South Africa's largest companies by revenue, and the largest property site in Southern Africa, it passes the muster of WP:NORG. Happy to contribute to the article's growth myself, as I'm sure other Wikipedians will over time. Thanks all!
- Largest something does not give notability if you read the guidelines. At best, you could say redirect to OLX as the notable parent. IgelRM (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Forward (startup accelerator)

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

no reliable sources, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited in the article, full of hyperbolic puffery...one of the most clear-cut cases of WP:PROMO I've seen in a while. But as for sources, all I could find were this piece [1] and this one [2], both of which look like lightly-edited PR releases to me. Thus the article fails WP:NCORP. Note there is an unrelated FastForward project at Johns Hopkins, which is not connected with this company but has much more coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chowly

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced to press releases (fail WP:ORGIND) and funding and aquisition announcements (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 ^talk! 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namah Pictures

AfDs for this article:

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

Long list of sources but not a single source which describes about the company and its work. Most of them are just mentions or in the form of press release about acquiring film rights or announcing about films. Hard to find independent neutral coverage about this company to meet notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Organizations, India, and Maharashtra. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable corp. As the nominator mentioned, I can't find coverage of the organization that meets SIRS of the company. Despite the length of blue-linked films in the article, there are no provisions for NFILM companies that allow for heritability (WP:NOTINHERITED) of the products or productions of a film company that meet notability. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Film. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And salt it. Clearly not notable as sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There is no significant coverage of this company in any reliable source. Afstromen (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are just passing mentions, no in-depth coverage. Fails to meet WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spurs Sports & Entertainment

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

The holding company is not-notable and fails WP:NCORP. The article is primarily content about the San Antonio Spurs, not the holding company, then a WP:SYNTHed-together reporting of the holding company's portfolio. Longhornsg (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, Basketball, and Texas. Longhornsg (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sports teams holding companies often are notable. Doing a before search brings up many hits for the company. Mostly books related to sports management. But I agree, the article should be redone to be less focused on the Spurs. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hits yes, but it's WP:ROUTINE coverage, which is what I found in my before. Are the cites in the books WP:SIGCOV of SS&E specifically? Longhornsg (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some books have had multiple pages dedicated to SS&E, such as these, and they are national authors too rather than local San Antonio coverage.

https://books.google.com/books?id=C9SbUYGyCvcC&pg=PA335&dq=Spurs+Sports+%26+Entertainment&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiinI7vwMSNAxXTPUQIHcnLDN8Q6AF6BAgMEAM

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Transforming_San_Antonio/-ETpCAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Spurs+Sports+%26+Entertainment&pg=PA180&printsec=frontcover

https://books.google.com/books?id=gVlkCQAAQBAJ&pg=PP3&dq=Spurs+Sports+%26+Entertainment&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiinI7vwMSNAxXTPUQIHcnLDN8Q6AF6BAgNEAM

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZSziAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&dq=Spurs+Sports+%26+Entertainment&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijo4DawcSNAxWgO0QIHftkCnw4ChDoAXoECAUQAw ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Football, and Ice hockey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources present in the article already demonstrates WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This just meets WP:GNG. I actually do think that content like this article, Green Bay Packers, Inc., and so on would be better contextualized in the team's article, but I don't see a basis in policy to delete them, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References used in this article demonstrate the notability of the subject. Passes WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. This source on Forbes is independent and reliable and counts towards GNG. this source is secondary and onpy partially contributes to GNG. The remaining sources are passing mentions, blogs, or not independent. Overall sourcing needs improvement. Flibirigit (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Basketball Partners

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

Non-notable holding company, notable only for its legal structure as the ownership entity of the Boston Celtics. Redirect to Boston Celtics as WP:ATD. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE business coverage. Longhornsg (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Longhornsg (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - can easily be merged into the Boston Celtics. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BFC Publications

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

Non-notable self-publishing company without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most references are routine announcements, paid pieces and press releases, or vanity record listings Mooonswimmer 18:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, note that I've removed the obvious fake/sponsored/paid media. Using this to support puffery is pretty deceptive. I was not able to find anything other than paid media, social media posts and PR. There's also a UPDE problem that needs to be resolved; I've left a note on the author's talk page. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, Sam. I understand the concerns regarding the reliance on non-independent sources, and I agree that Wikipedia content must be verifiable and supported by reliable, third-party references. I appreciate you flagging the UPDE issue and notifying the original contributor.

In response to the notability concerns, here are a few points that may support the inclusion of BFC Publications on Wikipedia:

Contribution to Emerging Authors: BFC Publications has established itself as a platform for debut and regional authors, many of whom have gone on to win literary awards or gain mainstream recognition. This makes it notable within the self-publishing and independent publishing ecosystem in India.

National Media Mentions: While some sources may be promotional, there are a few national-level media mentions (e.g., in The Hindu, Business Standard, or Times of India) that reference BFC Publications in the context of trends in the publishing industry. These mentions suggest broader industry relevance.

Participation in National Literary Events: BFC Publications has been featured or invited to participate in notable literary festivals such as the Delhi Book Fair, Nainital Literature Festival, and Lock the Box, which adds to its notability in the public domain.

Author Roster & Published Works: The company has published over [insert number] books, including bestsellers in regional and genre-specific markets (e.g., Hindi fiction, self-help). Some of these titles have garnered significant attention or reviews from independent platforms.

Academic & Library Listings: Several books published by BFC Publications are cataloged in major library databases (e.g., WorldCat, national libraries), which suggests a level of recognition beyond pure PR.

Industry Innovation: BFC is among the few Indian self-publishing companies offering end-to-end services including book trailers, Amazon ranking support, and distribution in both domestic and international markets, which has been cited as a case study in some media/industry blogs. Niteshrai7777 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be very clear; the "original contributor" notified of undisclosed paid editing concerns is you. Please do not edit further until you have made the proper disclosures on you talk page or here. You are currently violating our terms of service. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of this canned LLM/AI marketing gibberish (tip: when the model spits out '[insert number] books', it wants you to insert the number so it looks organic). Sam Kuru (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability of any flavour (to the point of being speediable). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thermacut

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

This company does not appear to meet WP:ORG. Sources present do not provide more than a passing mention of the company name or website, or are press releases from the company itself. Results from Google Books seem to be limited to the website address or notes that the company's involvement in various trade fairs. C 679 03:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. C 679 03:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promotional/vanity cruft. Jdcooper (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT - only sources (outside of thermacut.com) are Torch Tech articles on Metalworking News, which is affiliated, or CORPTRIV (acquisitions). "Thermacut bur" is an unrelated technology. Current sources do not establish notability; see source table.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Bloomberg			One sentence; trivial	✘ No
The Fabricator	Press release		Trivial coverage of one technology	✘ No
JoeWelder		Personal blog	About a single product, not the company	✘ No
Thomasnet	Advertisement			✘ No
HelloTrade	Profile by Thermacut			✘ No
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}}.

Anerdw (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spinny (company)

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at Spinny. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for bringing this article to AfD. I believe the subject may now meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It's possible that when earlier versions or submissions were reviewed, such coverage was not yet available, but recent searches (including on Google) show more in-depth and reliable sources. I support the AfD process in this case so that the wider community can evaluate whether the subject meets the notability criteria. I appreciate that this nomination was made in good faith. Afstromen (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen could you specify which sources you mean? Mrfoogles (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes India, Economic Times, Live Mint, Moneycontrol, Entrepreneur Afstromen (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided here are not reliable; they all appear to be promotional material from the same date and on the same topics.1) Spinny raises $283 million [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]2)Spinny has fired about 300 employees[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]3)Spinny opens 1,000 acre park [21][22][23][24][25] SachinSwami (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and what about Forbes India and Entrepreneur source? Afstromen (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [26] Afstromen (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[27], [28] Afstromen (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No change between same date and same topic.4)Spinny raises $65 million[29][30][31] SachinSwami (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SachinSwami I am agree with your point but can you share your review on Forbes India, Entrepreneur and other sources i mentioned in this discussion. Also [32][33]

[34] Afstromen (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are from the same date and same topic.5)Spinny Acquires Scouto[35][36][37][38][39][40] SachinSwami (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are focusing mainly on the sources that were published on the same date, but you are ignoring other reliable and high-quality sources. Afstromen (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This company is highly suspicious for COI and it looks like Covert advertisement. Check the previous deletion history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinny B-Factor 16:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India.Afstromen (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the sources are from the same date and on the same topic, appearing entirely promotional.*:SachinSwami (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user seems very interested in this page; I suspect a conflict of interest (COI). SachinSwami (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am interested in discussing the sources. and I have nothing to do with COI. Afstromen (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth discussing promotional sources? 38 sources were shown, all appearing like advertisements. I can provide many more sources from the same date and same topic. SachinSwami (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify a few things, and after this I’ll leave it here.

[41] – This is a detailed piece that gives significant coverage to the company. It wasn’t published on the same date as the others, so I’m not sure why it's being grouped that way. It clearly supports notability under GNG.

[42] – This is from India Today, which is both reliable and independent.

[43] – An exclusive from Forbes India should count as independent and non-trivial coverage.

[44] – This is another solid source from Deccan Chronicle that adds to the overall picture. Afstromen (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the vote casting and conflict of interest matter, I saw substantial publicity regarding the corporation. Fulfill the conditions outlined in WP:NCORP. I found [45], [46], [47] and [48] AndySailz (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The analysis of the provided sources is as follow: 1) WP:FORBES states that "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff with editorial oversight and are generally reliable... Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight and is generally unreliable." 2 The Financial Express article focuses heavily on Spin's success and positive aspects. Due to its promotional tone, it cannot be considered fully neutral. 3 ) India Today is considered reliable, but this article also emphasizes Spinny's positive aspects (such as customer-centric approach and use of technology) without shedding much light on the company’s challenges or shortcomings. It lacks a thorough evaluation of Spin's true situation, making the article appear one-sided. The source does not meet the criteria of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RS. SachinSwami (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your opinion clear, and I believe it's now fair to allow other editors the opportunity to contribute their views as well. I would also like to note that the Forbes article cited is bylined by a named journalist, which adds to its reliability under Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Additionally, the Deccan Chronicle article provides coverage about the company. Let's continue this discussion constructively and collaboratively, following Wikipedia's guidelines. Afstromen (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user is welcome to evaluate sources presented by other votes. This is a discussion, not a vote count. Please do not attempt to stifle their comments. The fact is that the majority of the sources are press-driven and come from the company, either paid for through non-disclosed ads or churnalism (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). --CNMall41 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that many sources are kind of press-driven. But why you aren't not pointing good article. Both Forbes India articles are reliable, staff-written pieces with bylined journalists. They offer in-depth, independent coverage of Spinny’s background and business model, meeting the criteria for notability under the General Notability Guideline (GNG). Also the articles from The Financial Express and Deccan Chronicle that are with bylined journalists name and offer coverage about the company. These publications meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards for news sources when written by named journalists. Also i found two Hindi sources [49], [50]. I am discussing this only because you are ignoring good sources. Afstromen (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. Please stop. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I won’t say anything further.Afstromen (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center

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

Article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and New York. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic seems notable to me. Promotional content can be reduced. Passes GNG. AndySailz (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had some press in 2014 which seems to be around its launch, but nothing since that time that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Huffington Post is a contributor piece and the rest is mentions our routine coverage which does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow Night

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

News Tower appears to be notable, but this studio is not notable. A merge to the game seems apt, though it would become a problem if the studio released more than one game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per nom, textbook case for WP:NOTINHERITED. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to News Tower, not independently notable. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to News Tower. There really needs to be an essay on how WP:NOTINHERITED applies to creators of works where sourcing on the works is the only evidence provided to support the notability of the creator. That generally fails WP:GNG every time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VFairs

AfDs for this article:

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

I draftified this because the original version was purely based on press releases. It was "improved" with other sources, but when the first source gives a 404 ([51]), as does the WSJ one[52], and I see a source like this one, I don't think it is worth keeping the article or the editor involved (note both the names of the writers and the ISBN):

Smith, John; Doe, Jane (2023). "Key Players in Virtual Event Platforms". The Evolution of Event Technology. Tech Press. pp. 112–115. ISBN 978-0123456789.

And then we have actual, working sources that don't even mention VFairs[53] Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Companies, Software, and Texas. Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nooter/Eriksen

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

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Missouri. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mornflake

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

Delete – The article reads more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedic entry. It provides minimal historical or critical context and instead focuses on listing products in a commercial tone. The references cited are either passing mentions or are not independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. There is no evidence that Mornflake has received substantial attention in independent publications to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In its current form, the article fails to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. Unless substantial independent sourcing is found, deletion is appropriate.

I have transcluded and formatted this AfD discussion initiated by User:GlenluceRoadLoser. I have no opinion at this time. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Norman, Paul (2016-08-12). "Mornflake Go! high protein porridge review". Cycling Weekly. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The review notes: "The Mornflake Go! high protein porridge is aimed at the physically active who want to get a protein boost with their breakfast porridge. It’s made of oat flakes supplemented with 12% soya protein. This ups its protein content to 21% from around 12% for standard porridge oats. So when made up with milk a serving gives you 14 grams of protein along with 26g of carbs – almost as much as many recovery bars and around 30% of the reference protein intake for an average adult. Being made with soya protein, Go! Is suitable for vegetarians too."
2. Howle, Nigel (2025-05-12). "Morning Foods: 350 years of a family food business". Cheshire Life. Newsquest. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Morning Foods, best known by its brand name Mornflake, has been a part of the fabric of life in Cheshire since miller William Lea set up business in the village of Swettenham in the 17th century. ... Mornflake’s story is one of innovation and service. It has ridden a rollercoaster of breakfast food fads and trends and now stands strong as a great British brand exporting to 80 countries."
3. Price, Richard; Saunders, Ethan (2025-02-10). "Cereal firm marks 350 years of making breakfasts". BBC. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Breakfast cereal firm Mornflake is planning a range of initiatives to celebrate its 350th anniversary. The company, based in Crewe, Cheshire, is a family-run business dating back to 1675 and currently employing more than 300 people. ... The company was founded by William Lea, who began milling oats at Swettenham Mill, 10 miles away from its current headquarters, just nine years after the Great Fire of London. It is now run by John Lea, the fifteenth generation of his family to oversee the business."
4. "Mornflake". CNBC. 2014-11-03. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Since 1675, 15 generations have succeeded William Lea to grow this business from its humble milling roots in Cheshire, England, to today’s company, which was founded in the 1940s, employs 370 people and reported a turnover of £146 million in 2014. Mornflake produces a range of oat based products including muesli, granola and porridge, and exports all over the world."
5. Gill, Oliver; Woolfson, Daniel; Boland, Hannah (2023-01-21). "Waitrose pulls Mornflake porridge from its shelves after 50 years". The Daily Telegraph. EBSCOhost 8Q3184878332. ProQuest 2767528704. Archived from the original on 2025-04-18. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Waitrose has withdrawn a porridge brand made by one of Britain's oldest companies, as the upmarket supermarket reduces the number of products on its shelves amid the cost of living crisis. ... Cheshire-based Mornflake was founded by Philip Lea and is still family-owned 15 generations later. It claims to be the country's fourth oldest company."
6. Callan, Scott (2020-09-08). "Great British Inspiration Mornflake goes live on TV". Cheshire Independent. Archived from the original on 2025-05-27. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The aritcle notes: "Millions of viewers are waking up to Mornflake as part of a national TV advertising campaign celebrating the food producer’s historic roots in Cheshire and expertise as millers. ITV adverts, running throughout September, feature three 20-second cinematic film clips telling the story of how the family firm, the fourth oldest in the country, grows and crafts oat-based cereal products loved by consumers worldwide."
7. Clay, Xanthe (2023-01-28). "I tried 22 granolas to find the best value for money – here's my verdict". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-21. Retrieved 2025-05-27.
  The article notes: "Contains lots of nice-looking things including raisins and pumpkin seeds but the few pale clumps there are aren’t crunchy; it’s more of a muesli texture. Not sweet, with a slightly bitter aftertaste."
8. Hurley, Paul (2019). A-Z of Crewe: Places-People-History. Stroud: Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-9507-5. Retrieved 2025-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Here we have a company that has existed in Crewe for many years. In fact fourteen generations of the Lea family have been milling oats in Cheshire since 1675. Morning Foods is one of the oldest companies in Great Britain and is still in the same family. The current managing director is John Lea, and Mornflake is a subsidiary. The Mornflake brand was introduced by the Lea family in 1942 during the dark days of the Second World War. Now grain from all over the UK is used in their products, and they are, as well as in the UK, exported across the world."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mornflake 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) 07:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While Mornflake may be a long-standing brand, the article does not meet the threshold of notability as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. The argument to "keep" relies on sources that, when examined, fail to demonstrate significant independent coverage beyond passing mentions, routine business reporting, or product reviews. Let's review the sources cited in the "keep" rationale:

Cycling Weekly (2016) – This is a product review of "Mornflake Go!," not in-depth reporting about the company. Reviews of individual consumer products do not establish notability for the brand as a whole. See WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTCATALOG.

Cheshire Life (2025) – A regional lifestyle piece focused on a company anniversary. While it adds local historical color, this type of coverage is largely promotional and lacks the depth and independence required by WP:SIGCOV.

BBC (2025) – A short, routine write-up about the company marking 350 years. While the BBC is a reliable source, the article does not offer deep critical analysis or sustained coverage beyond the milestone event. It's closer to a press release in tone.

CNBC (2014) – This article contradicts other sources on the company’s founding date and again repeats uncritical corporate claims. It does not provide the kind of analytical depth or independent investigation that demonstrates notability.

Daily Telegraph (2023) – The article discusses Waitrose delisting Mornflake among other brands as part of a broader strategy. Mornflake is mentioned, but the focus is on Waitrose. This is a passing mention at best, per WP:TRIVIAL.

Cheshire Independent (2020) – Merely notes a paid television advertisement campaign. Coverage of paid media buys does not confer notability, as it can be purchased by any entity with a marketing budget. See WP:NOTPROMO.

Daily Telegraph (2023) – Another product review, this time of granola. Reviews, especially when the product is not the main focus, are insufficient to establish notability.

A-Z of Crewe (2019) – A local-interest book with very limited distribution and factual inconsistencies (such as conflicting founding dates) further weakens the case.

Moreover, the article contains a list of products, which reads like a brand catalogue, violating WP:NOTDIR and suggesting a lack of encyclopedic tone. The presence of a family-run business, longevity, and a presence in local or trade publications do not alone meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.

In conclusion, the Mornflake article lacks significant and independent coverage that goes beyond routine mentions, press-like features, or product reviews.

It fails to meet the criteria at WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Recommend deletion. GlenluceRoadLoser (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motherhood Hospitals

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

A straightforward promotion of an IVF clinic and doesn't meet the WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, India, and Karnataka. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is promotional and the subject does not appear notable. MrTaxes (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is completely promotional and non-notable.Almandavi (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:NCORP. 95.134.245.233 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DV Boer Controversy

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

Shakily sourced controversy article; creating editor was blocked from editing Bagong Henerasyon (along with everyone else for now) for adding undue weight and poor Reddit-based blog sourcing about a minor controversy involving that organization, so they're taking their grievances to any other article related to BH they can find and creating what reads here as an unbalanced attack page (originally titled DV Boer Scam) against the organization using this company's issues to COATRACK about BH and related organizations, along with Roberto Gerard Nazal Jr.. Nathannah • 📮 23:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Crime, Politics, Companies, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth (which isn't much), it would appear that DV Boer itself has no article — just this one about the controversy surrounding it. (Granted, it probably isn't impossible for an otherwise non-notable company to still have notable controversies; I offer no opinion as to whether that is the case here.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did take that in mind in nominating this; if there was a company article to redirect to I would not send this here, but straight off it's just an immediate attack with no context outside 'company bad', along with them trying to shove their view of BH anywhere they can. Nathannah • 📮 03:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any information about the company beyond its probably links to the Members Church of God International by MCGI Exiters group. While personally I could sympathize their cause, it remains a fringe movement which have not or will probably not be picked up by the mainstream media outlets which would have helped establish WP:SIGCOV. However, alas Wikipedia ultimately not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Club

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

I removed a bunch of clearly promotional PR fluff, and really this article fails to pass any WP:GNG requirements for a company. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very much a promotional article, even with the promotional garbage cleaned up, it still is not worthy of being on Wikipedia. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Management

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

Non-notable modeling agency. Simply a laundry list of clients. Mostly unsourced, and the sources that do appear are simply announcements or basic coverage of a new client. No WP:SIGCOV indicating the agency is notable for any other reason. ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent RS which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Fashion, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage: [54], [55], [56]. 95.134.245.233 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrosia Organic Farm

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

Coverage on this company is limited to recycled press releases and advertorials (notice the article titles containing terms like "motivating story", "heartening story" and "intriguing story" as well as the lack of a byline). Falls well short of the sourcing standards expected at WP:NCORP. Yuvaank (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has more significant coverage demonstrating notability than actual content, hence, deletion is not warranted at this time. Additionally this is an old company established 32 years ago. Passes WP:NCORP. B-Factor 16:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found three more citations; one from The Hindu (a sponsored post), Zee News (Churn), and the third one is from Times of India (a trivial mention). The majority of its media coverage falls under WP:CHURN and WP:RSNOI. Charlie (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAFU (company)

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. I find it rather concerning that an article like this was accepted in AfC. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, this nomination borders on the frivolous. CNBC? Check. Arabian Business? Check. The National;Emirates 24/7; Khaleej Times all national newspapers? Check. It's not even WP:BEFORE, it's staring you in the face, right there. The article is scrappy, but deletion as eny fule no, is not cleanup. The company is notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your perspective and it has already been discussed at RS Noticeboard. Kindly refrain from continuing this line of argument in a condescending tone, as it may be perceived as disruptive. Charlie (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus in that discussion, in which I note I was an enthusiastic participant, to deprecate UAE media or to treat them as generally unreliable. My line of argument, which I will feel perfectly free to continue to pursue, is that these are all RS, we clearly and unarguably pass WP:GNG and this nomination is, in that case, incorrect. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV, reliable secondary sources. ORG has won awards, boosting notability. As Alexander above has previously mentioned, the sources are reliable and secondary. jolielover♥talk 06:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, this is failed to meet WP:NCORP. Unable to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The references are just passing mentions and announcements by the company. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K-ID (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources consist of funding reports and product launch announcements. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Singapore. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the broken links as well the content to meet WP:NCORP.~~--Kinda89b (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a feature on Donovan from law.com. IgelRM (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Gun Interactive

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

Disputed PROD. Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Sources mostly relate to Age of Empires: Castle Siege, so I suggest redirect or merge there. IgelRM (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. IgelRM (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not mostly. Only three (2, 3, and 4) out of the six sources in article Smoking Gun Interactive relate to Age of Empires: Castle Siege. And the nominator is actually proposing a merger, not a deletion. This should go through the Wikipedia:Merging process, not the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Kosova

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

Fails WP:NCORP, but it's a bit harder to tell as not a single reference link works. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Albania. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does appear to exist, but it's simply WP:TOOSOON. Also note apparently there was a Bosnian Air Kosova that operated briefly in 2000. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz marketing

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

Written as a WP:PROMO, there is no evidence of notability and passing WP:CORP. Only things that show up are a marketing strategy, and nothing about the company. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marketing buzz. Google search for "buzz marketing" kelowna reveals CORPTRIV (directory pages, lists of marketing companies, etc), not SIGCOV. Although the page has existed since 2005, it was a redirect to various pages until a 14 May edit; re-redirectifying it is probably the best approach. Anerdw (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - while totally and blatantly spam, this is a useful search term. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree the redirect should be reinstated and the WP:PROMO article removed. --hroest 17:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiduciam

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

Not notable. Almost all sources are self published, & I can't find anything better. TheLongTone (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited! Please let me know if you want to add further sources. ChristosTrap (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UsefulCharts

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

I was originally motivated to create this article since I am a fan of its content. Looking back on it, it is mostly poor sources or interviews or short coverage. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Companies. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First four sources (although first two of them short) seem to meet SigCov. They can't all be non-RS. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, there are several independent WP:RS that discuss the subject in depth including the Vancouver Sun. --hroest 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Z[reply]
Keep per above. This is a good source. 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certinal

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

Sources are press releases and primary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. All available sources from before search are not WP:RS Mekomo (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Did a WP:BEFORE and can't find anything, nor for parent Zycus. Fails WP:NCORP. Creator has a long history of poor articles being challenged, with multiple speedy deletes and abandoned drafts. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZF Openmatics

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

Company which only seems to have received trivial coverage, failing WP:ORG. Some references are written like press releases. Article mainly created and maintained by two WP:SPA editors (2013, 2022).C 679 07:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. C 679 07:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Btw the company is currently in liquidation. FromCzech (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ZF Friedrichshafen (WP:ATD). 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nokken Hotel Cabins

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

Non-notable cabin manufacturer. Cannot find WP:RSs. Current sources are WP:ROTM and not sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. Created by suspicious (likely paid) editor account that for all intents and purposes is WP:SPA, meaning there would be a WP:COI so the page needs to clearly meet WP:N, which is does not. Cabrils (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious non notable paid article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Codava Makkada Coota

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

None of the articles are about the organization, just mentions. Mostly WP:ROTM stuff about events they participated in. (to be fair, please review this version from before I removed some WP:NEWSORGINDIA content). 🄻 🄰 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, Organizations, Companies, and India. 🄻 🄰 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Paar

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

The article appears to not have any secondary sourcing, and the sources on the dewiki article, as well as on Google, are mostly routine announcements and press releases, in addition of use of the company's website. It would be helpful of more secondary sourcing be found, but I feel that this falls short of WP:NCORP. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete there is coverage in reliable sources, such as scientific journals [57] and industry specific publications [58] [59] but not really a ton of it. Coverage in a scientific journal may indicate notability but it reads like a press release, furthermore it also seems they are sponsoring a prize [60] in the same journal and thus coverage may not be fully independent. --hroest 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Anton Paar is a relatively large instrument manufacturer (top 25 in 2016 [61]). I agree the article needs to be updated, but I expect that additional sources could be found. Some of its history is covered in more depth in industry magazines [62]. I would like to see more independent sources found for a stronger keep vote though. Searching in German/Austrian sources could be more fruitful. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosm (company)

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

I stumbled upon this article after looking at the LiveLike VR article that was nominated for deletion. Three sources are given in the article, one of which is a press release, and another doesn't exist at all. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Sports, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure this can fall under WP:PROMO as well. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; widespread coverage. // Gargaj (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Organics

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to press releases and local papers that fail WP:AUD. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Colorado, and Texas. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Pdubs.94 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom mostly due to WP:AUD Czarking0 (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I see in the article and on Google are press-releases. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. In my proper WP:BEFORE, I found additional references such as in-depth coverage in Denver Business Journal ([63]) and Washington City Paper ([64]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.39.21 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these sources meets WP:AUD. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and passes WP:GNG - coverage has been found. 95.134.245.233 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All cited articles are from city or state-level newspapers or magazines. Easy WP:GNG pass. 95.134.245.233 (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A more descriptive comment about how the sources meet or don't meet WP:AUD concerns would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nous Research

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

non-notable company that apparently has a lot of money. everything is interviews or press releases. maybe too soon, maybe just never notable. but either way, it's not notable as it stands. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator); company has significant coverage in several articles in VentureBeat (WP:VENTUREBEAT) and Fortune, and therefore has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The articles in VentureBeat particularly are far more than just press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Crypto is questionable at best but it's basically just a rehashed interview. Fortune is also pretty terrible for the same reasons and it's just a press release without saying as much. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that in reverse, Fortune is the interview, Venture Crypto is basically a PR/interview rehashed. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VENTUREBEAT is listed as reliable at WP:RSP without exceptions. Has there been some discussion that they are unreliable on crypto news? The articles themselves are in-depth and technical, far more than just rehashed press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Technology, and Computing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a propaganda piece for a company with no notable achievement that lives of social media hype. Their biggest achievement is a fine-tune of openweight models (Hermes) that barely improves the benchmark scores and has no community relevance outside of their social media circles. Sumosacerdote (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LIZY (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are either based on company announcements (fail WP:ORGIND) or funding and launch announcements (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Belgium, France, and Netherlands. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this article that is not included in the references right now. Also this one. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sleek Flow

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

Article is about a startup that fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NCORP). There aren't sources that discusses the subject in depth, and the sources are mostly sponsored, routine announcements of raisings etc..., and talk about the founder other than the business itself. Also note that this source, while it meets WP:SIGCOV, it might also be sponsored by the way. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT, including the one listed in Hotelier which is unbylined and likely churnalism or sponsored. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the company is not very old, but it has garnered significant press in several reputable sources. Complies with WP:NCORP. SailabK (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asphales

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

Fails to establish notability under WP:GNG; lacks substantial independent, reliable secondary sources covering the subject beyond minimal, trivial mentions AndesExplorer (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Belgium. AndesExplorer (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Wikipedia Library includes access to De Standaard, a major Belgian newspaper. A quick search turns up 16 hits for articles containing "Asphales" and 15 hits for "Fortales" (Asphales' current name).--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aramco Financial Services Company

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

Insufficient independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability per WP:GNG; sourcing relies heavily on the parent company (Saudi Aramco) business reporting. AndesExplorer (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Saudi Arabia. AndesExplorer (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Certificate of Financial Responsibility written in 2014. Aramco Financial Services Company was written in 2006 and seems to be about the same subject matter. However, Certificate of Financial Responsibility seems to make more sense. In the long run, I'm not sure this subject matter is worthy of an article. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the proposed target for a merger is only tangentially related. This is a company; the target is a process and rule. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Article is about the same subject and it should merge with Certificate of Financial Responsibility Pasados (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think merging to COFR makes sense. Maybe a merge to the parent company Saudi Aramco. I don't think there info on this page worth merging though, so delete makes more sense to me. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvell Software Solutions Israel

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:NCORP ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into its parent Marvell Technology per ATD and PRESERVE. Classroom example of excessive fragmentation. Thanks for nominating! gidonb (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now - Although it has since been deleted, the notability flag on the article was only placed on it on 17 May, a day before this AfD was initiated. It would be better for interested editors to be given time to improve the article first in response to the notability or other concerns, without imminent deletion hanging over the article. The notability flag should be restored, and if the article isn't improved in a meaningful amount of time, then the AfD can (and should) be reinitiated. Coining (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Marvell Technology, which is a good target for this non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and more importantly, fails WP:NCORP due to lack of significant in-depth independent coverage. Netherzone (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this company isn't completely notable, but it's better to put it in context with its parent company's article than delete it outright. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with the merge into Marvell Technology to at least have it as a mention and add more context for the more well known main company it is related with.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Marvell Technology as above per WP:ATD, sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors 4 Christ Wrestling

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable pro wrestling promotion. quick search shows 0 results. Since it was deleted in 2008, i recomend WP:SALT HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Alternative weeklies are typically regarded as credible journalistic sources. Are we disregarding that source because of a dead URL? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One source. Per WP:GNG, "multiple sources are generally expected" looking here, there are mostly wikias, reddit and facebook/youtube. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir Press

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searched the typical WP:BEFORE places, newspapers.com, and PressReader - didn't find anything more in-depth than mentions. No inherited notability from association w/ notable writers, and no clear merge/redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an small, independent press publishing poetry and literary fiction. These publications are not often covered in mainstream press, yet their publications play a role in literary communities. Curious why, with public funding of arts largely stripped in the U.S., librarians being fired, this is the right time to delete a small press from Wikipedia? 174.238.164.181 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has always required that topics be notable as established via WP:RS. This article was created by an WP:SPA (which usually indicates they likely had a very close connection to Elixir Press) almost 8 years ago. It wasn't appropriate to publish articles on non-notable topics back then, either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my 20-minute search for references came up empty. Note that there is another, unrelated press named "Golden Elixir Press". (Note: I think this argument is from User:A. B. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, that was me. Thanks for signing for me. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in terms of referencing that would support notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Golden Elixir Press" a notable press by these standards? 63.135.182.71 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure given the current referencing although it does seem to be the primary/original publisher of translated copies of several notable Taoist texts. Whether or not it is notable is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— many of the authors who have been published by Elixir Press continue to be active and are producing new works. Because of the nature of Elixir’s work as an independent press focused in part on debut authors, several authors may have been lesser known at the time of their publication, but have grown in notability. Agree that to focus on the possible deletion of an article on an independent press is particularly troubling when literature and the arts are being devalued at large. 64.135.133.153 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Press itself isn't going away, nor are the authors or published works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics as established by reliable sources, which this article has always lacked going back for eight years now. If the argument is that it enhances this specific press or helps them maintain visibility, that is directly contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--it is troubling given premier role this press plays and context: current state of the arts/Wikipedia's purpose/the need for public support of poetry even if things were glorious. It is one of a few presses that new poets DREAM their work will be published by. People in the poetry world look to it too, to identify and read up and coming writers. And they make beautiful books also an endangered art. KEEP! 2601:19B:4102:1370:7097:75E6:4823:96F8 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--This is an established small press offering a well known first book prize, which is often won by writers who go on to greater fame. Worth keeping as a listing if you are interested in accurate info about literary publishing, small presses or writers in America. Poems published by this press have been featured on Poetry Daily, The Slowdown and more. 73.61.242.125 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that these IPs are all making the name (non-policy based) argument, have all never edited before, all geolocate to one of two of the same regions, and have highly specific and unusual concerns, I worry that there may be WP:CANVASSing going on here. I ask any closer to take that into consideration. Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: Elixir Press is canvassing through its Facebook page. I won't post the link due to WP:OUTING issues but there are serious COI concerns and at least one person connected to the article/AfD sells their books on Elixir Press's website. This is looking like the abuse of Wikipedia to enhance the visibility/SEO of a non-notable (I still have yet to see a policy-based keep vote) press. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Peony Press

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Searching on gscholar, archive.org found virtually nothing except content about books they published, which they do not inherit the notability of. Even for a book publisher there are also not that many hits for their books, it is almost entirely citations to one book they published (which is notable), to an extent where I was able to look through the citations relatively completely. The 4th source is sigcov... but written by the founder of the company. The single piece of independent sigcov is the 5th source in this article, which is [65] this, which is fine. But that is only 1 source. Not enough for GNG or the higher NCORP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator here. I've added three more independent sources, being a scholarly monograph, an art market paper and an obituary. It seems to me that it constitutes substantial coverage alongside the existing ones, and the fact that new research is appearing on it sixteen years after it closed is a sign of notability. Thanks! Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The monograph has a paragraph, the obituary has 1 mention. The other source has 3 sentences. Not horrible, but not enough to pass WP:NCORP. I realize Mabel Lee has an article and she is the founder so now instead of deletion I would recommend merging to Mabel Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

： Have added another source in Chinese. Of course I understand that the source base is small, but I wrote the article because I couldn't figure out what this press that had published several important writers was. Having figured out via research what it was, it seems to me very much the point of Wikipedia editing to provide that information for others. I can guarantee that it is notable for people working on translation studies in Australia, which I grant you is a small group, but we exist. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that you made this article for a good reason but the sources here do not pass WP:SIRS (required for organization articles). Notability isn't inherited from the books they publish. If it is merged the information on the publisher won't be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have added another source that I consider to be SIRS if you care to review. I suppose much of it rides on what you think is 'significant.' There are now four English IRS sources of several sentences and a fifth one in Chinese. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source is fine. Now we have the two sources about the company, but this is still not enough for WP:NCORP per WP:MULTSOURCES. The rest are one or two sentence mentions, which do not count for notability. The rest of the English sources are passing, and the Chinese source mentions them for a single sentence ( non WP:SIRS coverage). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be factual, besides the sources you don't dispute (Galik; Taylor), Brennan is by the narrowest definition four sentences and Bruno three (or four if you also include p. 121). The Chinese source mentions them not, as you write, for a single sentence, but two (it doesn't permit copy-pasting, but the section begins with 其中 and goes to footnote 6). In all of these cases the surrounding text also bears on the situation of WP in the translation and publishing environment of the day. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only sentence in the Chinese source that refers to them: "其中A.R.戴维斯的“杜甫雨诗赏析”是我读到的最好最真切的唐诗英译! 80年代初悉尼大学的Mabel Lee(陈顺妍)博士还创立了野牡丹出版社，出版了大量优秀的亚洲文学翻译作品以及早期移民的英文作品比如来自广东的Stanley Hunt先生写的《从石岐到悉尼》" [

[One of the best and most authentic English translations of Tang poems I have ever read is A.R. Davies' “An Appreciation of Du Fu's Rain Poems”! In the early 80's, Dr. Mabel Lee (Chen Shunyan) from the University of Sydney also founded the Wild Peony Press, which published a large number of excellent translations of Asian literature, as well as early immigrants' works in English, such as “From Shiqi to Sydney” written by Mr. Stanley Hunt from Guangdong.] the footnote is a citation and does not contain more sentences. The next sentence does not mention them, only Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using text on the "surrounding situation" would be WP:SYNTH.

And sentences about Lee that do not mention Peony do not count for information on the publisher. And three sentences in a single short paragraph is also not WP:SIRS ... I can't access anything in Southerly but I would be surprised if the quality of coverage was any different. Most of these sources are really about Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the Chinese source; I misread, apologies. As for Southerly, it isn't fair to make assumptions if you haven't read it. From p. 215 of the Southerly article:

"Considering the decline in foreign language education over the last ten years — especially those languages key to our region such as Bahasa Indonesia, Mandarin and Japanese — it might be said, in Howardspeak, monolingualism is all about a fair go. This is a sad possibility for the broader Australian community, which is in actu - ality richly polyglot. Thankfully, Mabel Lee’s and A. D. Syrokomia- Stefanowska’s work with Wild Peony has been a particular boon, bringing in work that may not have otherwise appeared, and is part of a larger, albeit under-sup ported, effort on the part of Australian translators, native-speaking collabor tors and publishers to offer foreign language literature to an Australian audience. Mabel Lee’s translations of Nobel Prize winner Gao Xingjian and Yang Lian, Simon Patton’s translations, editing and collaboration through the Chinese pages of Poetry International Web, Ouyang Yu’s work with Otherland, Peter Boyle’s translations from Spanish and French, and Leith Morton’s translations of Shuntaro Tanikawa, Ishigaki Rin, and Koike Masayo, along with various Australian literary journals (notably Heat and Southerly), and Melbourne University’s Asialink Program are some of the key recent examples of Australian translators and pub - lishers working against the abashed and embarrassed tide of Australian monolingualism. The publication of collections such as Naikan Tao and Tony Prince’s Eight Contemporary Chinese Poets, and the work of small publishers such as Wild Peony Press, are an important move against cultural parochialism. Sadly, Tao’s and Prince’s anthol - ogy represents one of the last publications for Wild Peony. It is difficult not to think, the Australian literary community might be well served supplementing the proliferation of annual Best of Australian Poetry anthologies with a Best of World Poetry or a Best of Poetry in Translation. Going by Tao’s and Prince’s Eight Contemporary Chinese Poets, the benefits would be considerable." When I say "surrounding situation" I just mean that Michael Brennan (poet) is here substantially talking about the role of Wild Peony (among other publishers) in Australian letters, even when he does not write "Wild Peony" in every sentence.WP:SYNTH does not apply and it is not all about Mabel Lee. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is about what I expected from that. I think I've said enough words so I am going to let other people comment on if this coverage is WP:SIRS compliant. Nevertheless, thank you very much for the quote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two parties presenting valid but opposing arguments. We need to hear from more participants willing to carefully examine the relevant sources and deliver an opinion here. And because it is buried in part of the discussion, I'll just mention that the nominator is now recommending a Merge and not a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are sufficient. NOTBROKEN. Let's all concentrate a bit more on the article space. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dryad Press

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. Merrill Leffler is notable and if we had an article on him I would suggest redirecting there, but as of now we do not. Searching for sources on the press I found nada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Odee Company

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was written by Buzz Tatom who worked for the company and admitted to it in the AfD back in 2005. And it does not appear to be any major coverage about the company since despite being made in 1923. GamerPro64 07:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Texas. GamerPro64 07:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TruVista Communications

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 02:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 02:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are sources showing it exists, but nothing that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. I found it strange that a company claiming to be more than 100 years old has no online presence. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Chester Telephone Company was started in 1897 as privately-owned independent telephone company to serve the small rural town of Chester, South Carolina. In the 1980s, it was one of the investors in a successful regional fiber network, PalmettoNet,^[66] that sold broadband capacity and dark fiber to large long distance telecoms and big corporate users. It also began acquiring small cable TV systems and now says it serves about 60,000 customers.^[67] Over the years, Chester Telephone, then TruVista got industry coverage for deploying new (at the time) technologies.^[68] TruVista was purchased by a big private equity firm, iCON Infrastructure, in 2019 and operates autonomously. ^[69] I personally think we should have an article about this company since it's part of the history of rural telecommunications. I know it would meet WP:GNG. However, companies have to meet Wikipedia's much more restrictive WP:NCORP guideline which effectively disqualifies most otherwise reliable press coverage (including major events such as "the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business") from notability consideration. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT (regardless of what name it was at the time), then it would meet NCORP. Makes sense that it had numerous name changes since there really isn't anything out there under the current name. I would be happy to change my vote if you can provide the links. I do not have access to ProQuest unfortunately though. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holafly

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

This appears to be a basic summary of a non-notable commercial operation - no assertion of notability is made, and the service it provides is routine / non-innovative. A mention in a list of eSIM operators would seem sufficient. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PRODUCT. An in-depth review in TechRadar - [70] - in-depth coverage in Levante-EMV - [71] - and La Vanguardia - [72] - is enough to pass WP:GNG threshold as well. 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VPR Mining Infra Private Ltd

(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) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article lacking sources to demonstrate its notability for an article here. Patre23 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be old article but needs to be cited with notable news references.Almandavi (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article looks like an advertisement. I attempted to locate significant coverage but hardly found this-[73], and appears to be unreliable. Currently, there is nothing to convey WP:NCORP. B-Factor (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not voting here, but sharing these to look at, [74], [75], [76], [77], interviews can also be used to pick up some points as this seems to be questioning in detail [78], [79], They have bagged several project including a few notable ones [80], [81], sponsored/partnered but tells us about Scania project [82], notable court related project case [83], [84]. Minor mentions primary, secondary to mentions that provide their work, court case and leadership informantion leads to GNG. There are mentions in other sources as well. Re-writing as an option would work better as it is an old article per Almandavi, tagging Patre23, B-Factor. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HilssaMansen19, Your comment is appreciable and your initiative to save an article. I would love to change my vote to Keep if I discover two substantial, independent pieces of coverage from credible sources. Rewriting may be a viable alternative as it serves as promotional content. B-Factor (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Star

AfDs for this article:

(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 and not a WP:LISTED company, as it claims on the page. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority of its media coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and WP:RSNOI. Fails WP:NCORP AndySailz (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KSK Energy Ventures

(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) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a company therefore WP:GNG/WP:NCORP should meet with at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content". The references mentioned are self-published, press coverage or announcement. B-Factor (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cantabil

(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. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the largest and oldest garment company in India. This article has the potential to remain on Wikipedia due to extensive coverage and compliance with company's notability criteria. B-Factor (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete B-Factor's claims that this company is amongst the oldest and largest garment companies are unsourced and most likely untrue. The available coverage is entirely trivial and does not meet the threshold of WP:CORPDEPTH. Yuvaank (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kin'unken

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

I did my WP:BEFORE and am nominating it for deletion under the grounds of WP:N. It could barely find any sources in Japanese, and none in English. DankPedia (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. DankPedia (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's your assessment of the Japanese sources you found? MarioGom (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:DankPedia, you have a question here posed to you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TATAA Biocenter

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

Relies almost entirely on primary sources. Unable to find any sources that show it meets WP:NCORP. The only secondary coverage is about an event - the former CEO being removed and suing a law firm that he says gave him bad counsel that led to his removal. But there’s no WP:INHERITORG from being associated with an event (and the event here does not even have sufficient enduring significance to qualify for a page under WP:Event in any case. I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by this company. I do not want to waste the time of volunteer editors to evaluate proposed corrections and edit requests on a page that does not qualify.) Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is not particualrly strong. Notability is not clear. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning keep - article definitely has an excessive detail problem, but they received some non-routine seeming coverage for their COVID-19 testing program (added 2 sources to article, although one isn't accessible w/o pressreader). Zzz plant (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the nominator may have been influenced more by a perceived conflict of interest (COI) issue than by the actual question of notability. The company in question was founded by Mikael Kubista, and similar patterns have occurred before. For example, on Mikael Kubista's own Wikipedia page, there was repeated removal of content related to a legal dispute involving TATAA Biocenter by SPA @ArtChomsky which was settled by an admin and the argument to remove a fact related TATAA there was irrational. A similar issue seems to be happening here—there appears to be an effort, possibly coordinated behind the scenes, to suppress certain information by removing pages from Wikipedia. This raises concerns about the integrity of the platform’s commitment to neutrality and transparency.

I urge editors to review this situation carefully, with special attention to the quality and relevance of the sources cited, to ensure that content is evaluated fairly and not unduly influenced by COI concerns or efforts to obscure verifiable information.ManIxal (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMC Automotriz

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Venezuela. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not fully decided on the !vote, but there's quite some coverage in independent sources, especially about production issues, worker strikes, and a major acquisition operation [85][86][87][88][89][90]. Also covered in in a book about the Panama Papers [91] but I have not accessed it so not sure the extent of it. MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a minor car seller in Venezuela, but still significant, representing all Hyundai sells. The article needs a lot of work and has mostly primary sources. However, there are many sources showing enough coverage. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing this as WP:NCORP. It is a manufacturer of multiple models, but what is it notable for? Many manufacturers of cars and car parts do not get their own article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindful of WP:WHATABOUT. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 27 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)