Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errund

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. This is another article for a non-notable startup. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errund

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

WP:RSand GNG Zazzysa (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wasn't able to find any other reliable sources-- the only article that might even be close to hitting RS would be this one ([1]), which isn't even about the company in question. Book search turned up nothing either. Nomader (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:NEXIST:"Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." The article contains many reliable sources that I recommend you read. I also suggest that instead of limiting google search to news to expand to regular search to see other press coverage. Google News is well known for its bug and can hardly be counted as an accurate archive of news. Hsypark (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC) — Hsypark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Please assume good faith here-- I read the sources both in the article and the ones that you've linked below, and I just don't find them to be notable, unfortunately. The Wisconsin piece isn't about the article in question and Errund is just a trivial mention in it. Streetwise media (which is the Bostinno article) says that "Everyone is a publisher in the digital age" and has no editorial control, which means it fails WP:RS. The articles that you supported from Adobeinfuse's arguments are just generic company profiles that can be easily auto-generated and would never qualify to show notability. I'm sticking with my original rationale and my Delete !vote. Nomader (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are multiple reliable sources found on the entry, not sure why Google gave you only 2 results. For example, this one from Xconomy, a well known news publisher, ([2]) features the company among 5 companies. This one from WGN Radio a major news radio company in Chicago ([3]) features the company itself. This one ([4]) written by the same publisher features the company in almost half the article. Moreover, two other senior wikipedia editors have patrolled the article as well. Other reliable sources can be found on the article itself. For example, this one ([5]). In my opinion, the publishers (xconomy, madison.com, wgn radio, bostinno) are reliable and well known in the United States. Moreover, the coverage is significant. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In other words, this article has more than several significant and reliable sources written by independent parties. Hsypark (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and RS. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. The company has perhaps been shown to be newsworthy, but not notable. All the sources are from news articles in the last few days. Come back and start the article in six months if WP:RSs are still talking about it. TJRC (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has RS dated back to 2012 ([6]) and recent articles were spread out within the last few months and not days. Moreover, WP:TOOSOON is about having no reliable sources rather than the recency of the articles as you have implied: "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." But in this case, the sources do exist. Like you said, the company is newsworthy. A synonym for newsworthy is notable. Hence, the company can be counted as notable. Hsypark (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company clearly meets the guidelines for notability. Their coverage is significant and available in CB Insights[7] and WEDC[8].Adobeinfuse (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". A few examples of independent, reliable sources which have given significant coverage can be found in my above "keep" argument. Hsypark (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another nn startup that wants a Wikipedia page ☆ Bri (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing notability. Also concerns about the account that created it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's clear, the page fails WP:RS and WP:GNG where notability cannot be established. Has been listed for deletion for a while.Zazzysa (talk) 19:46, 25 July 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.