Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homa (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. I'm not convinced that the editors arguing to keep this article have a good understanding of NCORP and what is required. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homa (company)[edit]

[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)

Routine announcements only, not meeting NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This topic has been deleted previously. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homa Games. Hitro talk 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was created and edited by User:Kevin Wolstenholme who has a self-declared conflict of interest with the article subject. --Mika1h (talk) 14:58, 4 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, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satsify WP:GNG for my liking and shouldn't be made by COI editor. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has coverage from sources that indicate notability - VentureBeat (considered reliable) and Techcrunch (likely reliable in this instance). It may need paring-down, no doubt, as some of the content referenced from less reliable sources may not meed the standard. WmLawson (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey WmLawson, neither the VentureBeat article (regurgitated company announcement on raising funding) nor either of the TechCrunch articles (both regurgitated funding announcements) meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, or am I missing something? Can you indicate which paragraphs in those articles contain "Independent Content" and I'll take another look, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe there is no need for deletion for this article. It has coverage, and is a relatively notable company, I would not delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk • contribs)

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⁺⁺ 20:24, 18 June 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.