Points of interest related to
Business on Wikipedia: Outline – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment |
Points of interest related to
Companies on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
watch |
Company that fails WP:NCORP. On this page, sources 1, 5, and 7 are WP:ORGTRIV coverage of capital raises. Source 2 is coverage of a Faye founder and does not reference the subject. Sources 3 and 10 are commercial, commission-driven review sites paired with Faye's advertising (editorially not under the Wall Street Journal newsroom, caveat lector!). Source 6 is a WP:INTERVIEW. Source 8 provides passing mention of the subject, not significant coverage, and Source 9 appears to be sponsor content/paid placement since there is a clear VentureBeat editorial disclaimer at the bottom. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are sponsor content, trivial coverage, or other reviews on commission-driven websites. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the paid disclosure from the creator of this article, but I don't see this meeting NCORP and it should have gone through AfC. Similar appears to be have been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO (2nd nomination). Disregarding that, none of the sources are sufficient to pass NCORP, many are press releases or primary sources related to the company. There's a bunch of statistic sites (e.g. [1]), which in counts as trivial coverage under "inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria". Other trivial coverage under ncorp includes raising capital ( [2]). Many supposed third-party sources are written or possibly written by the company and thus primary ( [3] is written by their PR manager, [4] is written by a "guest writer", and covers a merger which is also trivial coverage). BEFORE search only turns up more of the same. Pahunkat ( talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
"The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe."That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one.
ORGCRIT assess table
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails NORG; article lists standard business activities, nothing noteworthy. BEFORE shows no substantial RS. StartGrammarTime ( talk) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Points of interest related to
Business on Wikipedia: Outline – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment |
Points of interest related to
Companies on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
watch |
Company that fails WP:NCORP. On this page, sources 1, 5, and 7 are WP:ORGTRIV coverage of capital raises. Source 2 is coverage of a Faye founder and does not reference the subject. Sources 3 and 10 are commercial, commission-driven review sites paired with Faye's advertising (editorially not under the Wall Street Journal newsroom, caveat lector!). Source 6 is a WP:INTERVIEW. Source 8 provides passing mention of the subject, not significant coverage, and Source 9 appears to be sponsor content/paid placement since there is a clear VentureBeat editorial disclaimer at the bottom. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are sponsor content, trivial coverage, or other reviews on commission-driven websites. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the paid disclosure from the creator of this article, but I don't see this meeting NCORP and it should have gone through AfC. Similar appears to be have been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO (2nd nomination). Disregarding that, none of the sources are sufficient to pass NCORP, many are press releases or primary sources related to the company. There's a bunch of statistic sites (e.g. [1]), which in counts as trivial coverage under "inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria". Other trivial coverage under ncorp includes raising capital ( [2]). Many supposed third-party sources are written or possibly written by the company and thus primary ( [3] is written by their PR manager, [4] is written by a "guest writer", and covers a merger which is also trivial coverage). BEFORE search only turns up more of the same. Pahunkat ( talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
"The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe."That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one.
ORGCRIT assess table
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails NORG; article lists standard business activities, nothing noteworthy. BEFORE shows no substantial RS. StartGrammarTime ( talk) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)