Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

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.

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|Business|~~~~}} 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 Business. 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 September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Business[edit]

Lybrate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelving engineering[edit]

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

The phrase "shelving engineering" returns zero google results beyond the name of one particular company. This appears just to be a random miscellaneous thing (shelving) that might need to be engineered, like a zillion other forms of "engineering" with no particular name. E Eng 06:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Business, and Engineering. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shelves may be objects of engineering as much as cars or buildings, but I can't find any specific secondary sources (some obscure articles discussing the design of shelves but nothing about a distinct discipline). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AKA Mr. Chow[edit]

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

No clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.

References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Business. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the following statement is almost bizarre: In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. .....???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least one of the current refs is clearly about the movie — the Hollywood Reporter article is called "Michael Chow Shares the Pain Behind the Glamour in New Documentary ‘AKA Mr. Chow’". There's also a Wall Street Journal review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review: Portrait of the Artist as a Restaurateur", and a Beverly Hills Courier review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’—But Who is ‘M?’" Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this really are that this is a documentary programme, not a film, so we aren't looking at notability in necessarily the same way. The documentary is about the subject, who is notable, whereas a film article would be expected to assert notability in its own right (like a tv episode, series etc). The question really is whether the actual documentary series is notable in its own right, irrespective that it covers (and is biographical in its nature) a subject who we know is notable.

My view on the sources largely are that they are really useful in expanding the article on the individual, but I can't be sure if they assert notability to have a standalone article for a 90min documentary programme. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely ~~notable~~ reliable (and independent) sources prove it. Kindly have a look at the sources that have been added and check the rest of the existing ones, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me is also a documentary; so is Madonna: Truth or Dare. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, just saying that there is no precedent for judging a documentary as non-notable just because it's about a notable subject. Notability is not un-inherited. As for the sources, as I said, there is a Wall Street Journal review that begins with the phrase "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review". Why doesn't that count? Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the 2 reviews in WSJ and Guardian should be enough to keep ANY film, and here we have 5-10 times that. (The reviews can ALSO be used to expand the bio of Chow, but that does not diminish the notability of the film according to WP requirements). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep): ~~I didn't search and only~~ the sources that the page currently ha(d)s~~, but the~~y seem(ed) to be sufficient to show it's notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Did search 3 minutes. Added some. See for yourself. Changing to STRONG KEEP.[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Chow (restaurateur) while there is nothing at all in the article. The sources are about the individual really and only mention the documentary as part of an interview or, worse, as a fact of existence, except the Hollywood Reporter article as mentioned. No need for a separate article— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep. The article at least has some substance now. Will watch. — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is now well sourced to establish notabilty and I have added quotes to it— Iadmc ♫^talk 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the need for a standalone article at this point. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator@Bungle:: Have you really checked existing sources??? also @Iadmc and Reywas92: Reviews and significant coverage in WSJ, Decider, Guardian, NYT, etc, etc...I'm inviting you to kindly withdraw this nomination. Added some to the page. - Feel free to add more! My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd firstly note that edit summaries/comments such as No evidence a BEFORE was indeed performed and Have you really checked existing sources???, do not feel like an assumption of good faith, and is a tone to perhaps reflect upon in future. My concerns where not through a lack of media coverage, as outlined. That said, regardless of my own view, consensus seems to be towards retaining, even though I still feel there is a credible case to rd or merge into the subject's article where it's barely mentioned, given it's broadly a collection of journalists' opinions and referencing overuse. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, China, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Architecture. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article know has referenced reviews from reliable sources such as The Guardian, Toronto Star, The Decider and therefore passes WP:NFILM in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews in WSJ, Beverly Hills Courier, Toronto Star and MovieWeb are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central 23[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or NORG. Sources are all interviews, lists of products, or do not mention Central 23. No RS found during BEFORE search. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Some of the sources in the article don't even mention the company and others barely mention it. — Iadmc ♫^talk 05:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another one where on its face it appears to be notable. However, applying WP:SIRS shows that WP:ORGCRIT is not met. Examples include this and this which are in-depth, but the information is supplied by the founders so there is no real independence of the topic. The main reference that is a claim for notability is the same as the others. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collat School of Business[edit]

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources on the articles are either primary, databases, or closely match the wording of a primary source. PROD was removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not opposed to sourcing improvements that would establish notability. This AfD merely describes the state of the article when it was dePRODed. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the University. Barring unique circumstances, the general consensus has always been that law schools and medical schools get articles and other sub-schools get a redirect or nothing at all. See SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is nothing here and nothing rising to the level of GNG that I could find to indicate this school is an exception to the general consensus. If this article was about a business rather than a business school, it would be an A7 CSD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the main UABpage. Sources used are primarily primary, and in digging, I was unable to pull any that meet WP: N. Obviously, just because I wasn't able to find those those kinds of sources isn't definitive, however, I understand the preferred treatment, if warranted, is to build out a supporting UAB academics page. The Academics section of the main UAB page would be the where the editor would want to start placing this information MertenMerten (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already added secondary sources.

Those sources are databases or closely match the wording of a primary source, none of which can be used to establish notability.

Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.

This is not a valid reason for why an article should be kept under WP: N.

It has met WP: N criteria.
You are free to baselessly claim, as the article's creator, that article meets notability guidelines. In its current state, it does not. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not baseless claims you haven't checked the secondary sources I added!.

Shortcut

WP:SIGCOV

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to annoy and delete a school/colleges page, you better check UCLA's collleges and school, most of there references are directly linked to the institution, not a single secondary sources but you wanted to delete this page with sufficient secondary sources I added, and yet you are ignoring it. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your time is better served finding better sources instead of calling a volunteer annoying, branding them as ignorant, or demanding they read a page which has nothing to do with the AfD. This AfD is about sourcing, so of the sources currently in the article diff:

The Belanger article is WP: ROUTINE coverage of the renaming of the school.

The Watson article isn't reliable. Who is this guy, and how do we know he didn't make up everything in the article?

The Lewis article was written by a high schooler and doesn't provide much information beyond that UAB's business program was ranked by the USNWR. I'd argue that this coverage is routine, and even if it isn't, there isn't much to make an article with.

There's two sources that are databases and can't be used to establish notability.

Anyway, nothing in this AfD stops anyone from putting information about the business school on the main UAB page, so I'm kind of surprised that there's such an aggressive push to keep the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's why it's called a secondary source because it only addresses the topic not the main topic and my sources are reliable and somehow you degraded a high school writer and still a reliable source. Your intentions are not really into the topic, you are trying to degrade my sources when in fact it is a criteria for nobility. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you still had doubts, I'll add as many secondary sources everyday until you get out of here. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and btw those are published articles that you are trying to belittle, and it means it has met the criteria for notability even if the writer is a high school, a farmer, or a homeless man. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I'm okay with a redirect to the main University of Alabama at Birmingham article as an AtD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for redirect, I already added secondary sources. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business Enterprise Trust[edit]

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

Article is fully promotional, mostly unsourced, and from a quick search I haven't found anything significant about this organisation (just other organisations with the same name). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kart[edit]

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

Requested at WP:AN, listed as a courtesy. User:62.165.250.83, please add your deletion rationale below. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Motorsport, and Italy. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOMPANY, may even be considered an ad. - 62.165.250.83 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And see also Kosmic Kart, which should probably also be included in this AfD. It seems just possible that the parent OTK Kart Group company might meet WP:NCOMPANY, though I doubt it from a quick Google check, but neither article even attempts to demonstrate that the 'brand' is notable. Advertising, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find anything that would establish notability after a quick Google search. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems an open and shut case of not satisfying notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunate, but there just isn't anything out there other than the most basic of passing mentions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totectors[edit]

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

No apparent signs of notability for this brand of safety footwear. The only Google results are for outlets that sell the brand, and the only news results discuss the relaunch of the brand by International Brands Group after the original manufacturer went out of business. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable brand, synonymous with steel capped safety boots in UK industry for decades. There's plenty of coverage in copyright sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

User:WikiDan61 Please improve the article by adding information about the change of ownership. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- @Rich Farmbrough: "plenty of coverage in copyright sources"? I'm not sure what that means. If it means that Totectors have applied for and received copyright protection for their brand, I don't see how that adds to notability. I could expand the article with notes about their acquisition, but I am loath to do so until we've evaluated whether the article merits inclusion / improvement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It means that there is coverage which cannot be accessed by simply "Googling". For older entities there will be easily accessible material via searchable on-line archives. For more recent entities there is likely to be material that was published after the widespread adoption of the Web, which will therefore be available. The period between 1930 and about 2000 is, in some senses, the hardest era to research. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library gives me 21 hits in the basic search, including:
- "Safety Footwear Goes up in Size." 2003. Works Management 56 (12): 37., about the manufacturing capacity after merging with UKS Group's footwear division
- "In Full Rig.” 2003. Forestry & British Timber 32 (5): 35., about some of the safety features in their workboots
- "Brand new plant planned for Totectors". 1994. Apparel International: The Journal of the Clothing and Footwear Institute Volume 25, p. 9, about moving to Rushden.
- Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph says they were the first to make safety footwear in the UK,[1] that they won an award from the Professional Clothing Industry Association Worldwide,[2] and that they're part of International Brands Group (i.e., is able to verify the last sentence in the article, which is currently uncited).[3] I think that this article is the most important find, however, as it reports some recent events but also outlines the company's history in ~200 words, which easily exceeds the standard for SIGCOV proposed in Wikipedia:One hundred words.
All of this give me, at minimum, grave doubt about the claim that this is not a notable business, and I think we should keep it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep - one of the articles about the company's acquisition has a section about its history and significance in the town where it was based. [4] I also see mention of it in ''The Victoria History of the County of Northampton'' book from 1902, and various industrial journals have mentioned them -- most of them in trivial ways, but at least one referring to them as ''famous footwear''. It seems like it has marginally enough notability. WmLawson (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yalta (nightclub)[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The sources are almost entirely from DJ Mag which is a single source. Wikilover3509 (talk) 7:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator

TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. B3251_(talk) 17:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine Ylang Ylang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to have enough coverage in references, so does not pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented. Thank you. Stockbroker369 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a food, drink place LOL. This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg. Stockbroker369 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd maybe look at CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right). That editor's analysis is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, how about you add the sources yourself instead? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly. It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.

There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources. Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that. There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year. The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course. Good day. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stockbroker369 This is an interesting article. It would be to your advantage if you could add a couple of more inline sources. Preferably in the first two paragraphs. Also images need to have the description on them like I just added. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Polo & Equestrian Club[edit]

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

Non notable article about an organization/club that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't talk of WP:NCORP when there is no notability and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Asia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom. Doesn't satisfying {WP:GNG]]. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SadaPay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Every reference is PR and churnalism. Every reference is a PR announcement. Fails WP:NCORP and the key tenet of WP:V. This is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Pakistan, and Turkey. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I've nominated for deletion the BLP of the founder of Sadapay, but I believe this article about the company should be kept. Considering the sign./in-depth press coverage the company has garnered - such as Pakistan Today, Pakistan Today, Bloomberg. Express Tribune - the company may meet WP:GNG. Fwiw, it is Pakistan's most-funded fintech. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single reference is regurgitated PR. With this referencing it fails. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, Well the coverage provided by Pakistan Today consists of investigative stories rather than press releases. And, Bloomberg typically doesn't cover Pakistani companies unless they are making some impacts. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first Pakistan Today ref is a lightly-rephrased press release. Compare this and this. The second, of course, is an entirely-routine funding announcement failing WP:ORGTRIV. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic, Alright, you've sold me. Count me in! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Did you mean only to strike your !vote and not enter a different opinion? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject meets the WP:ORGCRIT. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfarazbaig The references must show this. They do not. Your argument is WP:ILIKEIT which carries no weight in this discussion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago we deleted this because it was almost entirely unsourced and the only sources anybody could find were press releases and routine announcements. Now we have a new article with mostly those same sources in them - not even new marketing material and reports of funding, but the same ones that were available and rejected before. The few that postdate the deletion are no better: Ref 7 is an announcement of an acquisition consisting almost entirely of quotes with the remaining two sentences verbatim from a press release; ref 8 is better-written, but still an announcement of the same acquisition and still routine; and ref 9 is an unreliable piece by a "Forbes contributor". The lack of improvement is so stark that I seriously considered G4ing it again. Delete. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a quick browse I found references articles that are not press release.--Cube b3 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then, tell us what they are and we can consider them. I'm willing to be convinced. I'm even, within reason, willing to help you convince me! But with neither evidence nor analysis, bare assertions like yours and Mfarazbaig's (the article creator) above are worth nada. —Cryptic 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cube b3 I'm in total agreement with @Cryptic on this. Convince us. Otherwise this is a worthless !vote, which I am sure is not what you intended. I did a search, quite a detailed one, and found none. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any editor may, during this discussion,especially when they declare that they have foiund good new references, improve the article and ask for it to be reconsidered under Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard once improved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Profit by Pakistan Today magazine is direct, in-depth, and balanced ([5], [6]). Then, there is additional coverage in DAWN ([7], [8]) and Bloomberg described it as the country's most-funded fintech in a routine funding round (such type of startups are almost always notable in the UK or US). WP:COMMONSENSE applies. 2A04:4A43:908F:F69C:81E4:3987:8686:1121 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:908F:F69C:81E4:3987:8686:1121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to see a review of sources brought to the discussion by the IP editor. Other Keep votes making assertions without providing citations are not worth much at all
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage provided by IP fails WP:SIRS. Saqib (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is exactly what WP:SIRS requires, quoted below:

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

This article in Profit was written by its staff and is a more-than-3000-word investigative journalism. This article is also by a staff member, is directly about SadaPay, and is more than 4k words long. I hope you're in good health (with all this hard work) because you're making a lot of wrong assessments and sloppy AfDs lately. Please consider slowlying down and not every comment need your reply (as multiple time requested on your talkpage recently). 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076, But it's not just me. Both @Timtrent and @Cryptic also turned down the same coverage, dismissing it as "PR," as you can see above. — Saqib (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have analysed all the sources. Each is blatant churnalism, all are WP:PRIMARY. Arguments to the contrary cannot stand 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasads Multiplex[edit]

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

Borderline G11, no indication of notability or significance for this IMAX theater, Sourcing isn't of WP:ORG level depth Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and India. Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent coverage in rather reliable sources, significant and in depth, about this multiplex, and backing the claim that it houses the biggest screen in India! (other sources claim it is one of the world's largest 3D IMax). So, yes, there are various indications of significance and notability and it seems to meet WP:GNG. A redirect to Culture_of_Hyderabad#Film is imv absolutely warranted anyway. Opposed to deletion. (G11? "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So basically, borderline G11 is not G11, if it was just that the tone and content may have been partially promotional, Afds are not for cleanup and given existing coverage, this potential issue was easily fixed; added 2 refs and trimmed the page but this can evidently be improved and expanded, thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sacks and Co.[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a business with no proven notability. As written, it contains no references. A limited web search reveals no feature stories or in-depth articles that would indicate that this organization should be included in an encyclopedia. A single story in Daily Variety [[9]] from 2006 was all I could unearth

I had previously submitted it for PROD but the reviewer somehow felt this was worth keeping. Volcom95 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Volcom95 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Advertising, Companies, Management, California, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Sacks and Co. article currently lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, raising concerns about its verifiability and relevance. However, instead of deletion, efforts could be made to improve the article by adding credible references and enhancing its content.--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have undertaken such an effort to improve and, as noted, only a single credible reference could be found. Volcom95 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created in 2008 by an SPI, indeed that was their only edit. Per the above, only one source could be found, so subject is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanati Clothing Company[edit]

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

Likely fails Wikipedia:ORGSIG Lordseriouspig 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and Companies. Lordseriouspig 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]