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[edit]

CoreHW[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wP:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 11 references, 8 are their own websites, and 2 are brief database type listings. That leaves only 1 possible GNG reference (#5 per 7/7/24 numbers) and it's behind a paywall. (A paywall does not preclude it from consideration, it just means that I was unable to review but a best it would mean only one) Wording follows this pattern, sounds like only self-description.

North8000 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article appears to be promotional and multiple sources go to the same page. Ternera (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPROMO and it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montreux Healthcare Fund[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage about the fund itself. Imcdc Contact 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Health and fitness, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civic technology companies[edit]

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

Largely redundant of civic technology and dubious sources throughout. The list is largely non-notable organizations. Anything useful here could be merged into civic technology. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely redundant article and the list is stuffed full of things that fail notability. CoconutOctopus talk 06:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Position[edit]

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

Trash article about non-notable company Polygnotus (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Allegedly related to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_133#ROTH_Capital_Partners~~. AfD may not be cleanup, but if I clean this article up nothing will be left. Polygnotus (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Internet, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the references are press-releases and unimportant awards ("top 100 places-to-work in the Portland area in 2016"). But [1], while not enough on its own, suggests there might be coverage. I agree with the nom that it is unclear whether any prose would be left in the article after cleanup. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question What or where is the "allegation" re: a relation to Roth? -- GreenC 03:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: The person who started the article was alleged to be related to the topic of that conversation. But, looking into it, I doubt it; so I struck it. They are "acting on behalf of specific companies/agendas" but I am not so sure they are related to that group of accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vennli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Coverage in purely local sources or from alumni publications does not contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Indiana. – Teratix ₵ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP and is purely promotional. - Amigao (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firmex[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tristancr (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Tristancr (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations4u[edit]

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

All the sources mentioned in the article are part of regular brand promotions/ interviews/ PRs. No significant coverage from independent sources. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Companies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. Charlie (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPACK Prefab[edit]

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

Promotional company page, fails WP:NCORP. Trivial sources only. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Case of WP:PROMO, Promotion, advertising. Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Jobs[edit]

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

No notability, fails NCORP, promo. Sources are not reliable. Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously corporate promotion, possibly using paid news? Dazzling4 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Healthcare[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ WP:NCORP. Created by a single purpose account whose career on Wikipedia so far is making a series of edits over 13 minutes. While a few non-related changes were made, the primary purpose is evident. Lots of PR Newswire results, some non WP:SIGCOV level of magazine coverage. I conducted some, but not exhaustive WP:BEFORE search and NCORP appears to fail. It appears to be a non-notable likely promo article. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Hospital[edit]

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

Still not notable. The last AfD (when the article was named Abdali Medical Center) was 5 years ago and the decision was to keep the article although it is notable that there was a number of editors saying it met GNG but didn't/wouldn't consider whether the sourcing met NCORP criteria. Nothing has changed in the meantime for me. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references have content that meets these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Health and fitness, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Services[edit]

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

Ordinary, run of the mill rehab for the local community that has no place on a global scale encyclopedia. Fails WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it clearly fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Capital Partners[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Current sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Can't seem to find anything independent that really covers the fund in-depth right now. Imcdc Contact 11:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 11:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the firm does not appear to be the subject of substantial press coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was also unable to find significant coverage of this fund. Brandon (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. Charlie (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing that I can locate appears to meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permian Investment Partners[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I cannot find any independent sources that covers the fund specifically and fulfils WP:SIRS. There are some sources about the founder or about it launching but not really anything in-depth. Imcdc Contact 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the firm does not appear to be the subject of substantial press coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor hedge fund with no significant coverage in either the references or in searches. Brandon (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Renaissance House[edit]

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

Run of the mill social services/rehab/treatment serving the local community that we can expect every medium to large cities to have. The NJ.com source is about a roundtable that was held at the organization but not really about the organization. An article like this has no place in a global scale encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New Jersey. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Unit[edit]

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

Fails company notability, all primary sourced or an interview. IgelRM (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. IgelRM (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Their name doesn't make it easy to look for sources, but I can't find significant coverage of note. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Look, I loved Hydro Thunder Hurricane, and I'm surprised how there's little-to-no coverage on its developer. All I found were primary sources, and I searched archive.org too, couldn't find anything. MK at your service. 15:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic World Racing[edit]

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

Together with Crendon Replicas, Blitzworld Buggies, Buckland Cars (and maybe others), articles created by @Mustang208:. None have significant coverage anywhere except for trade/specially articles. I don't think any pass WP:N. I picked this one as a start for the discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I haven't created these articles per se, but have copied them over from German Wikipedia.

I noticed the List of Car Manufacturers of the United Kingdom had a notice asking for more correctly sourced examples, so added to the list by copying over the German pages for smaller British car manufacturers, as I believed (perhaps naively) that since they were already on German wiki, they would be suitable pages.

Overall, since I haven't spent a great deal of time on these, I'm happy to go along with whatever consensus is reached.

Thanks. Mustang208 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any new sources except for financial statements/company stuff which is given in by the company itself, so not an innuendo of WP:SIGCOV Vorann Gencov (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Pekao Investments[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Poland. Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company is likely notable (pl wiki article is a bit better, states it is the largest investment fund in Poland) but both our and pl are lacking independent refs. Quick GS search suggests sources exist (ex. [2]) but I am not motivated to fix this - the company should hire a PAID editor for that. They certainly can afford this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Asset Management[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources used are either written by the firm's founder or are interviews with him that rule out independence. I so far cannot see any proper independence sources that provide significant coverage on the firm itself. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. 3 gnews hits says it all, lacking third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just use Google seach instead of Google News. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. - Altenmann >talk 04:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP and Reliable sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hedgefund journal, UCITS hedge Funds, Eurohedge and Hedgeweek are not reliable sources? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you specify exactly how and where it fails NCORP please? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company's founder is also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Ilinski. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Here are examples of independent sources

https://www.ipe.com/investment/asset-management-fees-whats-the-going-rate/10012128.article

https://www.ft.com/content/e6aff8b0-5480-11df-8bef-00144feab49a

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trends-in-economics-a-calculus-of-risk/ Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the deletion of the article on Fusion Asset Management for the following reasons:

Fusion Asset Management is a well-regarded company within the financial sector, with 20+ years track record particularly known for its innovative approaches to asset management and risk mitigation. The company's methodologies and strategies have been widely discussed and adopted within the industry.

Contrary to the claim of insufficient independent sources, Fusion Asset Management has been featured in several reputable financial publications. These include coverage in the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Hedge Fund Journal, and Hedgeweek. These sources provide independent verification of the company's activities, achievements, and contributions to the finance industry.

In addition to these, Fusion Asset Management’s methodologies and research have been cited in academic papers and industry reports, further establishing its impact and recognition beyond self-published content.

If there are particular sections of the article that do not comply with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, they can be revised. Specific feedback on which sections need improvement would be greatly appreciated, allowing for targeted revisions rather than a blanket deletion.

Deleting the article would overlook the company’s impact and the opportunity to provide comprehensive and accurate information to the public. I urge for a reconsideration of the deletion proposal, focusing on improving the article rather than removing it.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this can be commercially motivated. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or update)

I oppose the deletion of the article on Fusion Asset Management for the following reasons:

Fusion Asset Management is a well-regarded company within the financial sector, with 20+ years track record particularly known for its innovative approaches to asset management and risk mitigation. The company's methodologies and strategies have been widely discussed and adopted within the industry.

Contrary to the claim of insufficient independent sources, Fusion Asset Management has been featured in several reputable financial publications. These include coverage in the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Hedge Fund Journal, and Hedgeweek. These sources provide independent verification of the company's activities, achievements, and contributions to the finance industry.

In addition to these, Fusion Asset Management’s methodologies and research have been cited in academic papers and industry reports, further establishing its impact and recognition beyond self-published content.

If there are particular sections of the article that do not comply with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, they can be revised. Specific feedback on which sections need improvement would be greatly appreciated, allowing for targeted revisions rather than a blanket deletion.

Deleting the article would overlook the company’s impact and the opportunity to provide comprehensive and accurate information to the public. I urge for a reconsideration of the deletion proposal, focusing on improving the article rather than removing it.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this can be commercially motivated.

Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your relation to the company Fusion Asset Management, per Wikipedia rules of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. - Altenmann >talk 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Cannot find any independent sources that provide WP:SIGCOV on it. Imcdc Contact 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. Imcdc Contact 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Zero evidence of notability. I speedied an article about the founder (or "founder"), Asuna Gilfoyle, in May. Gilfoyle was a character in Silicon Valley -- I think A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P. is a joke. JSFarman (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P.'s Securities and Exchange Commission registration: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/329643. I would disagree that it's a joke based on the registration. CacheOverride (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it clearly fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conserveira do Sul[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Medical[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a WP:PROMO Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT. Fails WP:RSP. Sponsored content published at supplements (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Renomination reason: sock puppet activity in the prior AfD discussion, also six months have passed since the last AfD. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, India, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Florida company, with an article sourced to Indian news sources, seems a bit odd... They exist, but there is no coverage of them we'd use, that isn't PR-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TRENDS Research & Advisory[edit]

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

Not notable. Un assiolo (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Un assiolo (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Un assiolo, do you have any policy-based evidence to support your claim? Just saying "not notable" is not very helpful. C F A 💬 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? This is a borderline A7. The sources are all press releases, a LinkedIn (which I have now removed), the company website, and a few company profiles (on websites that collect them indiscriminately). Adding something along the lines of the three sentences suggested at WP:JN would not, in my opinion, add anything of substance to the nomination. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability whatsoever. Also is one of them seriously a job listing??? Procyon117 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cityscape Global[edit]

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

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. Ciudatul (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ciudatul (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; no coverage of any kind in sources other than obscure and likely unreliable tech blogs. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of in-depth coverage; easily meets WP:NCORP. See Google news (ex: [3][4][5][6][7][8] etc.). It might need a bit of cleanup but deletion is certainly not warranted. I don't think the nominator did a WP:BEFORE. C F A 💬 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 8 is too buggy to open without registering, 9 appears to be a trade journal (not a RS), 10 is a brief PR item, as is 11. 12 is fine I suppose. 13 is a staff report about an award given out, somewhat related. Most of these are not terribly helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though there is a lot of coverage online of this event. The articles above were just a few I found by skimming the first page of Google news. For example, here is another article from Arab News, here is one from Gulf News, here is one in the Entrepreneur magazine, here is one in the Gulf Business magazine, here is one from Gulf Today, and the list goes on and on. The subject is definitely notable (it is covered in-depth by many, many independent reliable sources), you just might have to wade through some routine press releases to get there. C F A 💬 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage" is not part of the criteria, the content of said coverage must include in-depth "Independent Content" about the topic. Looking at the sourcing you've referenced, this in Arab News is word-for-word the same as this article published the following day and shares the same information as this article also. Clearly the content is regurgitated PR. This in Gulf News is undoubtedly a PR piece which relies entirely on the mentioned company (and which also fails CORPDEPTH in any case). This in Entrepreneur is yet more PR, same details published in other places around the same time using the exact same information and descriptions, e.g. this. Exact same problems with this in Gulf Business - just regurgitated PR announcing details of the upcoming event. Note also how none of those articles have any attributed journalists. Finally, we get to this in Gulf Today which went around interviewing sponsors and exhibitors - none of this is in-depth "Independent Content" about the event. None of the above references meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my vote. Arab News and Entrepreneur are both independent and reliable and don't do PR/promotion. Whether the article was republished from a news agency doesn't really matter in terms of notability. I am not familiar with Gulf News, though it seems to be a newspaper of record and I see no evidence of it doing promotional stories. The Gulf Today piece does not cover the event itself in-depth, but it can be strung together with many other similar stories (check Google News) to meet GNG. C F A 💬 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most coverage of this conference/trade show is in PR items, talking about the show. I don't see much beyond lists of awards or PRish news items. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/WP:NCORP, none of the sourcing I can locate meets the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosphorus Development[edit]

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

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:ORGTRIV (routine coverage of market entries, financing, awards, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (interviews, self-published materials), or otherwise unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing validating notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the minimal sources for establishing notablity are present and company is operating in two countries and is behind the biggest buildings in Turkey (Istanbul Tower 205, Istanbul aquarium) etc.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we don't agree about the availability of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS -- can you share your WP:THREE best sources for other editors to evaluate? (Notability is not WP:INHERITED from buildings this company may have been involved with.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep lean towards keep per WP NEXIST (Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article). The company had various names throughout its history, and it was mentioned in Turkish newspapers with no digital copies. I will try to add what I can find. 78.177.93.54 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — 78.177.93.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Premium Prestige[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Sourced with unreliable references. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, and Italy. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure, it existed but this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darkworks[edit]

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

Not finding evidence the company passes WP:NCORP; the only sources around, even in gaming magazines, are trivial mentions, corporate announcements and interviews. Almost everything about them is in the context of the Alone in the Dark reboot and I Am Alive. Was created by a WP:SPA and of unclear notability since then, suggesting some level of WP:SPAM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears relevant for Video games in France: Gamekult" "De "Alone in the Dark" à "I am Alive" : la malheureuse histoire de DarkWorks", "Cinq studios français allient leur force", "Antoine Villette", thegameeffect: "Behind the Scenes: I Am Alive's Development Disaster", Libération. IgelRM (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare - none of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Doe (whistleblower)[edit]

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

I 'WP:BOLDly redirected this to Panama Papers, however was reverted by an IP claiming that the redirect was odd given that no consensus had been obtained on either talk page. The subject has no independent notability outside of their role in the release of the panama papers. I'm not sure if this quite fits into WP:BLP1E given that the subject is anonymous and we don't know if they are still on this planet or not, however it certainly fits into the spirit of that policy given that the subject's notability is only understood insofar as they leaked the panama papers. Material about the subject is already covered in Panama Papers so there is no need for a merge and I am seeking community consensus that the redirect be restored. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Companies, and Economics. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Crime, Finance, Law, Politics, and Panama. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Basically what TarnishedPath said, but Subject is not WP:NOTABILITY enough, and the stuff in this article is already stated in both the opening paragraphs and the Newsroom logistics of the Panama Papers article, so I believe this is a fair redirect. Sharrdx (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. We don't know enough about John Doe to fill him out independently of Panama Papers Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but also consider this as a merger as the information is already in the target article. I think this meets not only WP:BLP1E, but also WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. This person seeks to be a low profile individual and remain anonymous so there is little prospect of any biographical information. It makes sense to have all the information in one article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. and others. A case of WP:BLP1E. Sal2100 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with the logic above and a merge/redirect is the best option considering BLP1E HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayeah Games[edit]

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

I am not seeing evidence that this studio passes WP:NCORP. It was created by a WP:SPA so it seems like open and shut WP:SPAM unless someone can bring up evidence it is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant independent coverage ~~except for a single article about its game published before the game was even released. This article was copied across a few websites.~~ The article appears to be based on a press release, so even that coverage is not independent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CDK Company[edit]

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

All sources link to a single viral moment of them performing a Gotye song, rather than any meaningful coverage. Article has had puffery issues in the past. Doesn't really seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY outside of a singular viral moment that got a modicum of coverage. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Dance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:NORG. This is spammy also at articles that lead to the page so a thorough cleanup along with the deletion is much appreciated. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nations Publications Limited of Malawi[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or Sng. Tagged by others for this since April. Misses ncorp by far. Zero references other than their own website and I couldn't find any GNG references. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to The Nation (Malawi), since this (AfD subject) is the parent company that owns The Nation, which is probably Malawi's oldest and generally reliable daily and weekly newspaper since 1993 being distributed locally around the country.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 Tumbuka Arch (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tumbuka Arch: Sounds like a good idea. North8000 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heung Kong Group[edit]

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

Unremarkable company UKWikiGuy (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. UKWikiGuy (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I conducted a brief search and located numerous Chinese sources with SIGCOV, including but not limited to Securities Times[9], Xinhua News Agency [10], Wen Wei Po[11], Hong Kong Commercial Daily[12], Sing Tao Daily[13], HK01[14], and China National Radio [15]. Sufficient to fulfill GNG. @Amigao: Please take a look at the newly located sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 07:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Prince of Erebor. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Heung Kong Group (traditional Chinese: 香江集團; simplified Chinese: 香江集团) 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) 06:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ✗plicit 23:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EGM Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Third time's a charm, I hope. This company has somehow survived two AfDs despite failing the notability guidelines for companies. The available sources are thinly-veiled press releases, not providing genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 13:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Environment, and New Jersey. – Teratix ₵ 13:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the sources are not very reliable and they (including the article itself) all seem like a big advetisement. Have you found any good sources anywhere that are reliable? Because I don't believe this exactly needs to be deleted, but it might be able to be improved. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a thorough look in all the usual places you'd expect to find sources on this sort of company and found no decent sources. They're all either associated with the company or regurgitating its press releases. – Teratix ₵ 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think a delete is a viable option. Everything about this corporation is a big ad. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Press releases pop up about once every 5-6 years in the card gaming press. Not enough business traction for notability. MNewnham (talk)

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.

BLEND[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article doesn't show notability, and a WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. It's all routine announcements and trivial coverage, mainly in press releases. bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jansen AG[edit]

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

DOesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some coverage:

100 years anniversary [16][17]
Mergers and acquisitions [18][19][20][21][22]
A visit to the company [23]
Coverage of their electricity production via PV panels [24]
Winners of the European Geothermal Innovation Award [25]
Two profiles on the St. Galler Tagblatt [26][27]

I'm not sure if it's enough for WP:ORG, @Boleyn: what do you think? If the company has been around for 100 years, probably more can be found. Broc (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 50 year profile here as well. Plus above, IMO it is good for NORG. Also an encyclopedia entry on the company's founder and the company (other coverage on the founder). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NCORP and Reliable sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second review of these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Broc's sources are both reliable and provide non-routine coverage of Jansen, for instance the two articles in St. Galler Tagblatt. Geschichte (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bent's Camp Resort[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable 12-cabin 'resort'. Sourcing is abysmal, and largely used for off-topic padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Wisconsin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I apologize that the article was not developed. It is a 131 year old camp and there is enough information available to write an encyclopedic article like this source about the founder "Charle's Bent" who is not yet in this article 1. They have a history in the Wisconsin lumber industry and deer hunt and harvest. It looks like they were recently featured on the America's Best Restaurants Road Show 2. I also do not think there is anything in this article about their annual music event "Northwoodstock" 3. Probably more to be said about their annual "Radar run" event also 4 Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it is a resort, should the relevant notability guidelines be WP:NORG? If so, it should probably be added to the appropriate delsort too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all clear whet the supposed claim to notability even is. As a former logging camp? A camping ground? A place that runs events? A place in the same county as alleged Bigfoot sightings? Hard to tell... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to companies. The lead tells us it is a resort in Wisconsin. A resort is a business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Thanks, historically it is a place that has had the same name but its use has evolved over a century. Right now it is a campground that hosts major events and also has a lodge. When I went there last year I took photos of the music festival (on commons now) and I also wrote an article on the lake which separates the Wisc and MI (Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)). The photo in the Mamie Lake article is looking away from the lodge at Bent's Camp. I have been editing less these days but I hope to get around to developing the article if it is not deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are these 'major events'? Where is the evidence that anyone not seeking to publicise them considers them 'major'. And how can a 12-cabin resort host 'major events' anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am dancing as fast as I can. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this is the 'major event' you are referring to? [28] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~see revised merge vote below In addition to the sources in the article, Lightburst gives 3 above. The first is really about Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, but discusses Bent and does confirm that he created a fishing camp with log cabins and dining in 1896. However this is not signifcant coverage under any guideline. The mention of the camp is passing. The second link is not reliable in that it presents different information in different locations of the world. In any case it appears to be simply news about a restaurant (if you are an American consumer). The last link is an announcement. That is certainly a primary source. So we have nothing. No notability for a standalone article. Next question is whether a merge or redirect is appropriate. The most likely merge target is to the stub at Mamie Lake (Wisconsin). However I cannot see why that article subject is notable either, albeit that it would be considered under the much laxer WP:GEOLAND. I also considered redirect to Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, as this is what the source above is about. However it is not really Bent's Camp Resort that is discussed there. Rather, it is Bent who would be of sufficient note for a mention. At this point, I don't see any benefit in a redirect that outweighs the disbenefit of Wikipedia promotionally mentioning non notable businesses. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn’t an encyclopedia article; it’s an advertisement with footnotes. Qwirkle (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has been canvassed offline by the nominator. It occurred on WPO in a thread titled "Crap Articles". The entry in that thread by the nominator says, "Bent's Camp Resort (T-H-L) Another masterpiece by Lightburst...". So it looks like this article will be deleted before I can add research about the history of the place; it would be nice to have this sent to draft or user space. If that cannot be done I understand. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any sign of canvassing. Everyone who has commented so far is an AfD regular. But if you are saying there are sources that demonstrate notability, you only need to show they exist, and you have a week to do it. Deletion is a discussion, not a foregone conclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy I understand, thanks for your consideration. I have no desire to edit for the time being. This is not a "woe is me" post, but I have to admit to myself that I had enough of the project for now. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Brandon (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Thanks, You are right, and I am sorry that it reads like a travel guide. I did argue for WP:NEXIST but hunting down sources is not on my schedule right now. If editors think this place should not be on Wikipedia I have to accept that. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a travel brochure, this is an article about a regional institution that has been around since at least the 1890s. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is likely a bad faith nomination. It's a fairly close call, GNG wise — being in operation for over a century, it is quite likely there is undiscovered sourcing out there. Carrite (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is an article from the Vilas County News of May 23, 1923 calling Bent's Camp the 4th oldest resort at that time and printing a photograph of it from the 1890s. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is an obituary for Austin Bent, son of Charles Bent, and for a time proprietor of Bent's Camp. It includes significant detail about the ownership of the business over time. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AND HERE we have a short piece from the Green Bay Press-Gazette on a petition over the expansion of Bent's Camp in 1965. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is a very substantial piece from the Madison Capital Times on the Bent's Camp expansion controversy, which had drawn in a member of the Wisconsin Conservation Commission. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen enough here, plus the footnotes showing in the piece, to get this one over the GNG bar. This is not commercial propaganda, this is a piece about living Americana, a historical site heading towards 150 years in operation. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN on the middle-1960s development controversy, this time noting that the case had gone all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AND THIS PIECE, entitled "North Needs Financing to Save Its Old Resorts," puts the Bent's Camp development controversy into historical context, as indicative of problems being suffered by other fishing resorts of the region. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You may have demonstrated that a worthwhile article might be written about this, but what was actually written belongs on one of those display stands of shiny cardstock brochures about local tourist traps. Whether better sourcing makes this worth an article, or space in another article, is still an open question. Qwirkle (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Qwirkle we meet again - twice in one night. Can we can consider WP:NEXIST as demonstrated by the Carrite sources? It is late here but I can try to find time to add them to the article tomorrow. Or another editor may add them. Thanks for considering. Lightburst (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sirfurboy, Brandon, Qwirkle, TarnishedPath to consider the above. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my comment as this is all a bit too spicy for my tastes. Brandon (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite on review of the analysis that @Sirfurboy has compiled below I don't see any reason to change my delete !vote, unless something changes. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you to Carrite who found sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Like others here, I came from the ANI. Bruxton (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - source assessment Carrite has spent considerable effort finding mention of this business in old newspapers using Newspapers.com. Many thanks for spending the time and effort to do that. On first glance I thought at least one of these was good: a review that talks about the camp. However, the depth of the review must be considered against the appropriate guidelines, and on that score, it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The WP:NORG guideilines describe what is required for significant coverage in CORPDEPTH which says:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

I have thus produced the following source assessment table for these new sources. Note that this is my own assessment only.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Eagle River Review [29]	I have not checked. Articles such as this often are not independent, but considering its age, and the coverage of 4 such camps, I have assumed it is ok		There is a single paragraph on the page subject (although the OCR splits it to 2), plus a photo. It has some salient information (not the oldest resrort, and the trail was cut through hardwood with an axe, built as a rendevous for lumberjacks). Looking at the CORPDEPTH guideline quoted above, it is clear that we don't have information here that can be used to write more than a brief or incomplete stub.	Worth mentioning here that newspaper reporting is a primary source, but this is not reporting so clearly secondary.
Wasua Daily Herald [30]			Passing mention in an obituary.	This one, however, is reporting Bent's death. A primary source for Bent, and the mention of the camp occasioned by the primary reporting.
Green Bay Press Gazette [31]		TBH I am just assuming the reliablity for all of these. They probably are, but I haven't checked.	This is about opposition to development by the owner of the camp. Nothing about the camp per CORPDEPTH.	Reporting the protest. We would be writing a secondary source if we used articles such as this to build an article. It would be good history, but a poor encyclopaedic article.
The Capital Times 1 [32] The Capital Times 2 [33] The Capital Times 3 [34] Multiple articles from a single source count together.			1 Mentions one of the enterpreneurs in the clash as the owner of the business. That is all. 2 all we are told is that business had sagged. 3 The last and this call it historic, but that is all it says. What historic means here is, presumably, it has been there a long time, as nothing actually historic is told to us.	1 is reporting a clash between businesses and is primary, 2 reports a falling out which is primary news reporting, 3 is reporting a need for financing, which is primary for that, but as the financing is to save "old resorts", the question of whether there is a mix of secondary reporting there of the camp itself is moot as there isn't significant reporting of it.

Note that under NORG we need multiple sources, and each source must individually meet WP:SIRS. I don't think any of these do. If someone were inclined to accept the first, you would still need multiple such sources. So we are not there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost completely sourced by primary sources, and, as Sirfurboy has pointed out above, there aren't enough reliable secondary sources to meet notability requirements. Articles are only as good as their sources allow, and what there isn't reliable. Easy delete.--Panian513 20:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the material User:Carrite brought in hasn't changed my mind that this current article doesn't belong in mainspace, but has, I think made the case that the subject is a little more important than this article would show. Maybe not as a standalone, but as an expanded part of LoL or the Cisco lakes and so forth. Maybe draftify it for now? Qwirkle (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wegner, Robert (2008). Classic Deer Camps. Iola, Wisconsin: Krause Publications. pp. 101–115. ISBN 978-0-89689-655-0. Retrieved 2024-07-14 – via Internet Archive.
  Bent's Camp Resort is covered on pages 101–115 of the book. The book notes: "Bent’s Camp remains a classic example of how man converted the antique, quaint lumber camps of the old lumbering era into romantic deer camps and recreational resorts of the early twentieth century; how these old time lumber camps became great enclaves of manliness and refined sportsmanship with a pronounced wildlife conservation ethic. Yet women also emerged into this rustic atmosphere as well, as we see in those two great deer hunting photos of Lizzy Bent with her classic Winchester rifle in hand and Henry and Ruth Voss posing with their trophy whitetail at Manitowish Waters—two photos shown in the Wisconsin Public Television Documentary "A State of Escape." Bent's Camp still exists today in all its magnificent splendor; in the interior of the camp with its beautiful, sapling wainscoating deer hunters still converse, tell stories, and in the North Woods around the camp reconnect with the ancient rhythms of nature."
2. Hintz, Martin; Percy, Pam (2014). Williams, Tracee (ed.). Food Lovers' Guide to Wisconsin: The Best Restaurants, Markets & Local Culinary Offerings. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-7627-9214-6. Retrieved 2024-07-14 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Dating from 1906, Bent's has the appropriate look of a bygone era, with its rustic decor including birch bark, held in place by cedar-bark strips, lining the ceiling and walls. Photos from the early days of Bent's Camp Jare everywhere, including on the menu. Almost everything has a homemade touch, from the vegetables grown on-site to the handmade pizza. Steaks and roast duck are specialties, with nightly specials. Pork chops, ribs, and yellowfin tuna earn raves from ravenous visitors, in from a day of fishing. Speaking of fins, Bent's Friday fish fry attracts a big crowd. Breakfast is served Saturday and Sunday with a Bloody Mary bar available starting at the wee hour of 8 a.m. Early every August, Bent's hosts its Northwoodstock festival, with live music all day and lots of food and beer. This self-proclaimed "hippie hoe down" is good for laughs, plenty of hamburgers, and several rounds of brew."
3. Westervelt, Amy (2012). Michigan's Upper Peninsula: A Great Destination. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. pp. 175, 178. ISBN 978-1-58157-138-7. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  The book notes: "Just over the Wisconsin border, in Land O’Lakes, Bent’s Camp (715-547-3487; www.bents-camp .com; $$$, closed Tuesdays in winter) offers a similar sort of experience. A former logging camp turned into a popular fishing resort, Bent’s also features an outstanding restaurant, famous for its Friday fish fry, Saturday prime rib, juicy roast duck, and homemade pizzas. Located in the main lodge of the resort, Bent’s Camp restaurant features wood tables in a large wooden, open-beam interior decorated with Native American trinkets and local hunting trophies. The restaurant has its own dock for those boating in for a meal. The Friday fish fry is renowned throughout the region, so plan on getting there early or waiting awhile if you want to find out what the big fuss is about—it's worth it."
4. Gauper, Beth (2005-02-13). "Golden Oldies - In the North Woods, Classic Lodges Are Remnants of a Vanished Era". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  The article provides 233 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Not far away, near the Michigan border west of Land O' Lakes, Bent's Camp began life in 1896 as a camp for sportsmen, brought over from the railroad landing in a wooden scow called the Tar Baby. A log restaurant was built in 1906, with interior walls covered by thick squares of birch bark held in place by cedar strips. Today, it's one of the north woods' most treasured spots. In the bar, old photos illustrate the resort's early history and a fire crackles in the stone fireplace; diners sit in a room lined with paned windows overlooking Mamie Lake or in the wood-paneled big room, under the gaze of a giant stag head. It's as far off the beaten path as it can be, but the specials when I was there were pure uptown -- Chilean sea bass with a langoustine cream sauce, duck confit and a delectable phyllo-wrapped lamb with gorgonzola, rosemary and garlic. ... Bent's Camp near Land O' Lakes, Wis.: This is a great destination even for a beer, ..."
5. Bawden, Timothy (2001). Reinventing the Frontier: Tourism, Nature, and Environmental Change in Northern Wisconsin, 1880–1930 (PhD thesis). University of Wisconsin–Madison. p. 115. ProQuest 231652918. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  The PhD thesis notes: "Charles Bent, a logger and lumberman from Oconto County, came to Vilas County in 1893 to homestead 67 acres of densely forested land on the shore of Lake Mamie, located 12 miles west of State Line (Land O' Lakes). The timber was so thick that a 40 acre tract produced a million feet of pine. Bent cleared some of the land in that first year and used the logs to build a main lodge and a few other buildings for his resort, naming it Bent's Camp. He eventually built his property into an impressive resort that included a main lodge, 12 cottages, a guide's quarters, stables, and ice and boat houses. The resort could accommodate 75 guests by 1915, which was almost twice the average at the time.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bent's Camp Resort 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) 09:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 5 of this list look interesting. Still trying to get the first book. The first is unavailable to borrow just now - do you still have it out? I need to read the last still. The middle three are not going to pass CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) - Cunard adds five sources above, and again thanks for the efforts on this. One of these, I suspect is a very good source, but I cannot review it, as below. I would be happy to admit that the hobbyist book, Classic Deer Camps is likely to provide significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source. The others I discount as I do not believe they meet CORPDEPTH. To show the notability of a business there needs to be more than directory style information, or basic history. This then leaves us short of the multiple WP:SIRS sources we need. However, on Wegner's book alone, I think we, per WP:FAILORG, have sufficient information that there should be mention of the camp on Wikipedia. I thus have revised my above delete !vote to a merge. The stub at Mamie Lake would be the best merge target, and a merge there would improve that page, retain the information about the camp on Wikipedia, and provide an appropriate place to add other such information. My assessment of the sources provided by Cunard is below.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Classic Deer Camps [35]	No indication that Wegner has any connection with the camp that would suggest this is not independent.	The publisher is Krause Publications (KP), which allows self publishing. [36], but I think that is perhaps recent. It was formerly known for hobby magazines and books. At time of publication (2008), KP were owned by F+W, publishers of special interest works. This author published a number of deer hunting books through KP. This would be a hobby book, but it is not clear to what extent it had any editorial review. It is, however, well put together. I don't see a reason to deny its reliability.	There is clearly a whole chapter on the camp. I think this is very likely to constitute signiifcant coverage, but the book is hard to find. Open Library has it but with limited preiview. None of my library services have it, and the specialist hobby nature of the work will make it hard to track down. I tehrefore cannot verify that it has significant coverage - but, again, it is a likely pass.
Food Lovers' Guide to Wisconsin: The Best Restaurants, Markets & Local Culinary Offerings [37]	An entry in a food lover's guide may not be independent as sometimes the entries are placed for payment. I have not investigated whether this is the case here as it fails on significance.	It is a guide about the food in the state. It appears to be a reliable one.	One long paragraph about the food at the bar and lodge restaurant in a local food lover's guide. Other than the date (of the restaurant), there is nothing here to write an article from. Fails CORPDEPTH.
Michigan's Upper Peninsula: A Great Destination [38]	A destination guide will list all the torist businesses at the destination. Often the content is placed, or write ups may be provided by the businesses		One long paragraph, mostly about the food. Apparently the fish fry is well reputed.	The extent to which this is a secondary source is debatable. The information is written ain the style of a secondary source. It is information about the businesses, but it is occasioned by the destination guide which is a primary source inasmuch as it describes the tourist attractions at a destination for the purposes of being a guide to the location as it is.
Golden Oldies - In the North Woods, Classic Lodges Are Remnants of a Vanished Era [39]	It is an article in local press. These may not be independent but I have not investigated this further as I don't believe this meets ORGCRIT	But local press.	4 paragraphs, a touch more than the above food guide, although the flavour of this is similar. It speaks of it as atreasured spot. Plenty of people would accept this as significant if we were not looking under CORPDEPTH, but under CORPDEPTH it still does not pass muster.
Reinventing the Frontier: Tourism, Nature, and Environmental Change in Northern Wisconsin, 1880–1930 [40]			All we have is the 132 words quoted and mention of some boats. There is sufficient information here to tell us when teh camp was created and its size, but nothing that asserts notability beyond its creation, nor the kind of in depth information envisaged by CORPDEPTH. Again, we stil have nothing beyond the information sufficient for a very brief stub, as before. We can say Bent built it, when he built it and how big it was, but we don't have the level of attention required to write more.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, I believe the "Classic Deer Camps" reference contains so many pages because most of those are photographs. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sirfurboy, I've found if you click on the arrows beside the page number, you can still see the pages of the book "Classic Deer Camps" (except maybe the first time you click but click again and they're available). From reading the available pages, arguably there isn't much by way of direct in-depth information but in my opinion there is sufficient information provided in an indirect manner. For example, much of the content is about a family named "Clow" and how they used Bent's camp as a base, sprinkled among this text is enough information to provide descriptions of various parts of the camp. Similarly on page 108 it mentions other "characters" that "hung out" at the camp and on page 109 it mentions the early years of the 20th century when the camp became a public resort charging $8 a week for board but that come deer-hunting season, the Clow deer-hunting clan took over. And so on. I think your analysis is correct, the book meets the criteria. That said, we need another source before the topic can be said to be notable. Have to also mention that on page 215 of this book, it lists other sources of information for Bent's Camp, which you can see in Google Books view of "Classic Deer Camps" HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm only able to identify one single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, being the first book in Cunard's list. None of the others meet GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERX. This isn't a !vote count. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What else am I supposed to say besides "I think Cunard's sources show that it is notable"? Of course it isn't a vote count but is there a need to rehash things when someone else has already said what I think? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a discussion. Which of Cunard's sources show it is notable and is there anything you can add which might rebut the analysis of Sirfurboy which points out why 4 of those sources don't meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 09:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the sources brought forward during this AfD would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group (Ghana)[edit]

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

This company does not meet any notability requirement. In the article's current form, all sources are primary and there is nothing out there to indicate notability per before search Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are purely promotional. Unlikely notability could ever be established. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is a member of the GSE Composite Index, so WP:LISTED probably applies here. A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company. Brandon (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search result you presented all come from a single source which is News Ghana and seems to be unreliable news website. At the bottom of all their articles they ask people to send in their news stories to a Gmail address. Which reliable media organisation uses such an email server? Besides, some of the articles about the subject published by the source (News Ghana) you presented are also attributed to GNA (Ghana News Agency) indicating that the articles are syndicated sponsored posts. Over all, the source you presented is not reliable and lacking in editorial oversight as it seems incapable to source its own news stories. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to forgive me as I am not an expert on media in Ghana. A similar search on the Daily Graphic (Ghana) returns similar results. Same with Business and Financial Times. Are there specific Ghanaian news sources you'd consider reliable? Brandon (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the sources are promotional, that does not mean it is notable. You say you did a before search, but somehow when I search it up I am able to find numerous different sources establishing notability. — 48 JCL 23:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Trains (open access operator)[edit]

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

Page already exists here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Virgin Trains is about a train operator that ceased in 2019, this is about a separate prospective operator with a different ownership structure. Virgin Trains was a franchised operator, if it comes to fruition, this will be an open access operator.In the same way that we have Flybe (1979-2020) and Flybe (2022–2023), same brand, but otherwise completely different. 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenfruy (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗
00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge as it does not appear the future incarnation is yet notable. Can be covered within the extant article until such time as notability changes and it can be spun out. Star Mississippi 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virgin Trains per Star. If they win the bid we can consider a split then Jumpytoo Talk 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grenfruy, or merge to a new overview article about the various uses of the Virgin brand in relation to UK railways. I Oppose merging to an existing article because none of those listed Virgin Trains (disambiguation) are suitable merge targets (based on those articles and the dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the same reasons as stated by Grenfuy as it is a different corporation. Rillington (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the new government's stated policy to renationalise the railways, is this proposal even valid any more? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless and until we know a lot more detail about the new plans it's impossible to say whether open access operators will be a feature of a nationalised railway (there are hundreds (at least) of possible structures it could take), but that's only tangentially relevant crystal ball-gazing. This is notable as a proposal (probably individually, definitely as part of a broader article) whether they end up ever running trains or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as above, and also worth noting that the new corporation's proposal has plenty of coverage already. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [41] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The vast majority of sources in the article are primary or affiliated, or they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that discuss LADA in passing. However, we have a bare minimum pass of WP:NORG with Chatzichristodoulou et al., Martin and Keidan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as per WP:CORPDEPTH there a couple more recent references made even before this listing, https://von.gov.ng/website-hosting-firm-advocates-enhanced-data-protection-measures/ , https://dailytrust.com/cybersecurity-firm-urges-nigerians-to-guide-their-data-online/ . This nomination for deletion should be rescinded in my opinon 4555hhm (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sourcing is the usual regurgitation or company PR and the "awards" may be verifiable but they are not sufficiently significant to meet notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clappers Records[edit]

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

I just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements. Variety312 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we should be careful about deleting this. It seems to have a significant cultural impact on rap and reggae. It has an entry here which is interesting, and at African American Research Perspectives [42], of which I can only see a small part. The label had one release which seems to be of particular significance [43]. I'm not finding enough coverage for a standalone article. Perhaps redirect to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise?? It seems to be significant enough to WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Companies proposed deletions[edit]