- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Softcom
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Softcom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A7 borderline eligible UPE article on a non notable organization that falls short of WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. I probably should have used the A7 but from my experience in dealing with UPE I have observed an AFD is imperative for a future G4 use. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm sure you know what you're doing, but I have a hard time connecting the dots here. I took a quick look at these sources [1] [2] [3], and they seem to provide some coverage of the subject. I was also able to find additional sources online with a cursory search on Google News. I'll take a closer look at them later (I need to go AFK for a bit) but I'm curious as to why you think they don't meet the standards of WP:ORGCRIT? It's possible that the articles are not independent of the subject (this happens all the time in the business world), but the sources themselves don't say they were written by Softcom.
- Also, I'm skeptical of the UPE allegation, mainly because the work is of such a poor quality that I have a hard time believing that anyone is paying for it. If it's true, then someone's not getting their money's worth. But I'm not involved in the case, so I'm just sharing my observation.
Edge3 (
talk) 02:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ Edge3, good question! The first and second source you linked are long announcements which do not discuss the organization itself per se with WP:SIGCOV. The third one is also an an announcement but even worse is, it is written by a guest editor which means it is probably a sponsored post which per WP:RS we consider to be unreliable. I’m happy to provide further clarifications if you need me to. Celestina007 ( talk) 05:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Thank you. I've taken a closer look at the sources, along with another one I just found, and I agree that they do not establish a sufficient amount of significant coverage. The standard of review is specified in WP:ORGCRIT. Most news coverage is routine coverage of a product or initiative. However, I should emphasize that I'm disregarding the WP:UPE allegation, since it's not relevant to determining notability for AfD purposes. Edge3 ( talk) 17:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:ORGCRIT is the most significant link to use to evaluate company pages. Unfortunately, none of the references listed above, on the page itself, or found in a Google search meet this criteria.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. While there is some in-depth coverage about the company, the press articles are mostly churnalism, with little or no analysis, evaluation or interpretation about the company and its activities, therefore failing the independent / secondary requirements of WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Softcom
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Softcom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A7 borderline eligible UPE article on a non notable organization that falls short of WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. I probably should have used the A7 but from my experience in dealing with UPE I have observed an AFD is imperative for a future G4 use. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm sure you know what you're doing, but I have a hard time connecting the dots here. I took a quick look at these sources [1] [2] [3], and they seem to provide some coverage of the subject. I was also able to find additional sources online with a cursory search on Google News. I'll take a closer look at them later (I need to go AFK for a bit) but I'm curious as to why you think they don't meet the standards of WP:ORGCRIT? It's possible that the articles are not independent of the subject (this happens all the time in the business world), but the sources themselves don't say they were written by Softcom.
- Also, I'm skeptical of the UPE allegation, mainly because the work is of such a poor quality that I have a hard time believing that anyone is paying for it. If it's true, then someone's not getting their money's worth. But I'm not involved in the case, so I'm just sharing my observation.
Edge3 (
talk) 02:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ Edge3, good question! The first and second source you linked are long announcements which do not discuss the organization itself per se with WP:SIGCOV. The third one is also an an announcement but even worse is, it is written by a guest editor which means it is probably a sponsored post which per WP:RS we consider to be unreliable. I’m happy to provide further clarifications if you need me to. Celestina007 ( talk) 05:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Thank you. I've taken a closer look at the sources, along with another one I just found, and I agree that they do not establish a sufficient amount of significant coverage. The standard of review is specified in WP:ORGCRIT. Most news coverage is routine coverage of a product or initiative. However, I should emphasize that I'm disregarding the WP:UPE allegation, since it's not relevant to determining notability for AfD purposes. Edge3 ( talk) 17:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:ORGCRIT is the most significant link to use to evaluate company pages. Unfortunately, none of the references listed above, on the page itself, or found in a Google search meet this criteria.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. While there is some in-depth coverage about the company, the press articles are mostly churnalism, with little or no analysis, evaluation or interpretation about the company and its activities, therefore failing the independent / secondary requirements of WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.