Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeplink (company) (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deeplink (company)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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 in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom. Advert of the company.JeepersClub (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 23:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are several articles there by Sarah Parez from TechCruch and I can't see any reason to think she isn't independent of the subject. She's not a "non-staff contributor" (in a manner that might make her work the sort of "dependent coverage" that WP:NCORP discourages), she's an on-staff reporter and has been since 2011. But given that we consider multiple instances of coverage by the same source to be a single source for our purposes here, there are a number of other similar instances of coverage. The fact that the subject's CEO has been quoted by the journalist does not make the journalist no longer independent, nor does it make the CEO the "source" of that coverage (a logical fallacy). St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stalwart111.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2021 (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.