- 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Trūata ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete Notability is not inherited so although the names of the companies involved in setting up this company are all notable, there is no indication that this company is notable in its own right. References are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages and is not a platform for promotion. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 19:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject of article has received
- significant coverage in
- multiple
- independent,
- reliable,
- secondary sources.
- As such, it meets
WP:ORGCRIT (and therefore also
WP:GNG). As such, it should be kept.
Zazpot (
talk)
19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think you need to go and look at the definition of independent a little closer. HighKing ++ 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. A news search does return a number of relatively recent sources. However, the majority of these seem to be of the "republished press-releases as journalism" variety - which is specifically called-out in the relevant INDEPENDENT/CHURNALISM guidelines. For example, the FT piece from 15 March overlaps in time/date/content with the original 15 March press release. And the "company creates 75 jobs" pieces on the Irish Times. RTÉ and elsewhere in June all reflect the June press release by the company. Otherwise the half-dozen other mentions are of a trivial nature (frankly to be expected in this day and age), and confirm only the organisation's existence rather than its notability, and provide no evidence of LASTING relevance. At *best* this seems like a case of TOOSOON. However, while I am not saying this is the case here, the manner and pattern of this article's creation are very similar to those patterns seen with accounts involved in paid-editing. That pattern, together with the promotional tone of the first revision gives me pause relative to the WP:PROMO guidelines. Firm delete recommendation from me. Guliolopez ( talk) 20:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: there do not appear to be any source that verify the topic's own notability. The fact it was setup by notable organisations is not good enough. ww2censor ( talk) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete we're not yellow pages, or a business directory. NCORP and CORPDEPTH in particular. Just seems run of the mill to me with PR and churnalism. Widefox; talk 10:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete I also agree with others' analysis above. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a type of Yellow Pages. References are not independent and fail WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Eh, HighKing, as the creator of this AfD, and as an editor with an existing 'delete' recommendation "on record" (both implicitly by opening the AfD thread, and explicitly by your introductory 'delete' statement), it seems a little redundant to have a second/duplicate contribution further down in the thread. I recognise that this is a discuss rather than a vote, and am perhaps not as active on AfD threads as others, but it seems a little unusual for a nominator to 'second' their own nomination. Did you perhaps forget that you'd already opened and contributed to this thread? Guliolopez ( talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Response Thank you, that entry was made in error, I only intended to respond to Zazpot's comment and got distracted as I was looking at other articles for deletion at the same time. I've struck that second !vote. HighKing ++ 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - not notbale. Spleodrach ( talk) 16:04, 16 August 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Trūata ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete Notability is not inherited so although the names of the companies involved in setting up this company are all notable, there is no indication that this company is notable in its own right. References are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages and is not a platform for promotion. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 19:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject of article has received
- significant coverage in
- multiple
- independent,
- reliable,
- secondary sources.
- As such, it meets
WP:ORGCRIT (and therefore also
WP:GNG). As such, it should be kept.
Zazpot (
talk)
19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think you need to go and look at the definition of independent a little closer. HighKing ++ 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. A news search does return a number of relatively recent sources. However, the majority of these seem to be of the "republished press-releases as journalism" variety - which is specifically called-out in the relevant INDEPENDENT/CHURNALISM guidelines. For example, the FT piece from 15 March overlaps in time/date/content with the original 15 March press release. And the "company creates 75 jobs" pieces on the Irish Times. RTÉ and elsewhere in June all reflect the June press release by the company. Otherwise the half-dozen other mentions are of a trivial nature (frankly to be expected in this day and age), and confirm only the organisation's existence rather than its notability, and provide no evidence of LASTING relevance. At *best* this seems like a case of TOOSOON. However, while I am not saying this is the case here, the manner and pattern of this article's creation are very similar to those patterns seen with accounts involved in paid-editing. That pattern, together with the promotional tone of the first revision gives me pause relative to the WP:PROMO guidelines. Firm delete recommendation from me. Guliolopez ( talk) 20:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: there do not appear to be any source that verify the topic's own notability. The fact it was setup by notable organisations is not good enough. ww2censor ( talk) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete we're not yellow pages, or a business directory. NCORP and CORPDEPTH in particular. Just seems run of the mill to me with PR and churnalism. Widefox; talk 10:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete I also agree with others' analysis above. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a type of Yellow Pages. References are not independent and fail WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Eh, HighKing, as the creator of this AfD, and as an editor with an existing 'delete' recommendation "on record" (both implicitly by opening the AfD thread, and explicitly by your introductory 'delete' statement), it seems a little redundant to have a second/duplicate contribution further down in the thread. I recognise that this is a discuss rather than a vote, and am perhaps not as active on AfD threads as others, but it seems a little unusual for a nominator to 'second' their own nomination. Did you perhaps forget that you'd already opened and contributed to this thread? Guliolopez ( talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Response Thank you, that entry was made in error, I only intended to respond to Zazpot's comment and got distracted as I was looking at other articles for deletion at the same time. I've struck that second !vote. HighKing ++ 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - not notbale. Spleodrach ( talk) 16:04, 16 August 2018 (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.