Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article (company)

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. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article (company)[edit]

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

unimportant company, sources are basically PR The Globe and Mail article is a barely disguised advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should have more sources; however, I feel like the statement above is over-exaggerated. Many similar competitors also have articles, such as South Shore Furniture and Stanley Furniture. Daylen (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A company does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because some of its purported competitors have Wikipedia articles — those articles may need to be deleted too, and just hadn't been noticed until you pointed them out. Backfire in the hole, baby. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at least one of those two other articles mentioned is of equally dubiousnotability. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, just a private company going about its business. Wikipedia is not a directory of unremarkable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thoroughly promotional and thus excluded from Wikipedia by the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy. Rentier (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improved citations, adding secondary sources for facts and figures in the article. Accolades have also been added to assert Article's position as a relevant e-commerce company. Providing another example of recent coverage supporting the relevance of Article in Canadian tech culture: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/the-canadian-tech-startups-that-could-be-the-next-billion-dollar-breakouts/97.107.183.52 (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per K.e.coffman above and lack of notability. Otr500 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to DGG, K.e.coffman, Otr500 re: WP:NCORP

The Depth test appears to be satisfied, given that the sources and depth of coverage is substantial, and that little to none can be considered an exception as described in the Depth of Coverage section.

The Audience test appears to be satisfied, given that the sources are highly varied, ranging from national news coverage in the USA and Canada to regional coverage, like that in Vancouver and Jacksonville.

The Independence of Sources test appears to be satisfied, given that all sources are independent of the organization. Furthermore, nearly all of the source material appears to be "non-trivial, non-routine works", which further supports the notability of this organization.

In response to Rentier re: WP:NOTADVERTISING

As written, it appears to include only verifiable information derived from independent sources, and is presented in a neutral, factual tone. It does not appear to violate any of the WP:PROMOTION content flags.97.107.183.52 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam and the worst for it. Corporate portfolios need to be kept where they belong, spam. Easy and simple. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to "HighKing", "Hey you, yeah you!":

When cross-referenced with GNG guidelines, all tests appear to be satisfied, with the one possible exception noted below:

Significant Coverage - almost all cited sources address the topic directly and in detail, appearing to satisfy this test. Sources are varied, and include TV, web, and possibly print coverage in a variety of mainstream and secondary publications.

Reliable - almost all sources meet this criteria. It could be argued that the "vff.vc" source fails this test, but otherwise this test appears entirely satisfied.

Sources - all, with the possible exception of "vff.vc", are secondary sources, which appear to satisfy this test.

Independent of the subject - all, with the possible exception of "vff.vc", are secondary sources, which satisfies this test.

Presumed - the above satisfies this test, supporting the "assumption for inclusion".

When sources are cross-referenced with WP:ORGIND, all tests appear satisfied, with the one possible exception noted below:

it could be argued that "vff.vc" source fails one or more tests, but that leaves 16 other sources appearing to satisfy all tests.

It should be noted that venture capital funds in Canada are subject to securities laws, which govern public disclosures. This would lend support to the independence of "vff.vc" sourced material.97.107.183.52 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Nope. You don't appear to understand the meaning of "independent of the subject". It doesn't mean that the company and the publisher have no relationship. It means that the content is intellectually independent and that the content doesn't rely on corporate communications (such as company announcements, interviews with CEOs, founders, etc or connected personnel or stories that rely extensively on quotations without providing any independent analysis and/or opinon). For example, this cnbc reference fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies exclusively on an interview with the founder and does not provide any independent analysis or opinion. Similarly the other articles. None meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arguing that there is purported competitor company which also have article is clear declaration of misusing Wikipedia for advertising purposes against core policy. Ammarpad (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2017 (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.