Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexsynergy

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lexsynergy[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)

Non-notable corporation. Sourcing is largely primary or PR ish items. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Internet. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I'm unsure about if the article fails notability guidelines, however the whole thing is written like an advertisement. The Leadership section is basically a resume introduction. Article should probably be deleted or entirely rewritten. Agentdoge (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article should speak for itself and explain to the reader what is notable about the subject. The article is about what the company says about itself, and not what third parties say about the company, so that it does not pass corporate notability. There is also a draft which is the same as this article, and the originator may have created two copies of the article so that the article could not be draftified. I have not reviewed the sources because the article has been reference-bombed, but it should not be necessary for a reader to read the references. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I waded through 55 citations in the Lexsynergy article so you don't have to. I also did an extensive reliable source web search. The result was nothing reliable and extensive enough sufficient to establish notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't believe the article fails notability guidelines, the company has been referenced by many third parties including non-profit industry bodies and other approved Wikipedia pages. It follows the same structure and referencing as other companies in the industry listed on Wikipedia: GoCompare, CSC and Markmonitor. Leadership and Philanthropy sections have been removed to maintain non-bias. KyleGouveiaPortsmouth (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources are from industry publications, non-profit industry bodies and domain registries. KyleGouveiaPortsmouth (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleGouveiaPortsmouth, I'm not saying you're wrong to keep but I'm trying to reconcile what you're saying about the refs versus my understanding of our current guidelines which usually call for some sort of in-depth coverage. I'm sympathetic but I need to be convinced - can you help reconcile our guidelines with the point you're making?

As for the other companies, if they have similar problems then they're vulnerable to deletion, too. Someone's going to throw out "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" to shoot down comments like yours. (I have some problems with the pejorative way people use that one, but I digress)

If you can't muster a convincing reply today, then I see two ways forward:

Invoke WP:IAR. In my experience, that's sort of a Hail Mary pass in deletion discussions.
Draftify this article for now, then start an RfC to change our notability guidance. Note that we already have some allowed exceptions for in-depth coverage for things like places (see WP:GEOLAND). Maybe we need one for companies like this, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to reply, I really appreciate it. I do not want to Invoke WP:IAR, I would like to do this properly and inline with Wikipedia’s rules. Please see below for my convincing in relation to notability guidelines, if we need to go down the RfC, then I would love to be able to assist.

General notability guidelines:

1.Presumed. There are over 30 reliable sources from industry bodies and domain registries, some of which also list Lexsynergy on their Wikipedia page, meaning it is is not an Orphan.

2. Significant coverage. Only one source is from the Lexsynergy website.

3. Reliable. The majority of sources are secondary, from well-established news outlets or from industry verified (via non-profit industry regulator) vendors.

Subject-specific guidelines (organizations and companies):

1. Lexsynergy have attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product, such as well-established news outlets.

2. Smaller organizations and their products can be notable without being synonyms with fame. Lexsynergy have won several awards and are referenced across the internet and Wikipedia as an accredited registrar.

3. There are examples of substantial coverage, including reports by Industry bodies, providers and regulators. KyleGouveiaPortsmouth (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is different from independence from the subject. Significant coverage requires that the coverage is in-depth. Please see WP:ORGDEPTH, which provides a lot of helpful guidance. ARandomName123 (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A random selection of references seems to show that most sources are either listings and provide no significant coverage, or are not independent of the subject. No indication it meets WP:NORG. ARandomName123 (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2023 (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.