Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokturn Technology Company Limited

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nokturn Technology Company Limited[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)

This article is very badly written. Of the four references, not a single one mentions the company's name, or is in any way related to it. It claims to have one hundred users. Wow! I do not find anything from a WP:BEFORE search. Since it has an infobox and references, I expect that a speedy nomination would be contested. jp×g 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jp×g 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. jp×g 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to have been blanked by its creator, whose WP user name is the same as someone identifying on LinkedIn as the company's chief technology officer. This may be merely a misguided attempt to write a WP article about a subject too close to home. If you're the creator of this article and have had second thoughts about it, you don't need to blank it; you can also request its speedy deletion by adding the template {{Db-G7}} as the only person who's made significant input. This doesn't preclude the creation of another article when better sources are available; it is likely to be WP:TOOSOON. Alternatively, since there was no prod, and no conflict, this could be soft-deleted. Elemimele (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails most (if not all) of WP:NBUSINESS, and the infobox and references fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The references that were included before failed establishing notability entirely. To be honest, I think CSD A7 could've applied here anyway, since the infobox doesn't indicate importance in any plausible way (5 employees, 2 years old?) WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 06:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Devokewater ^(talk) 17:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references. Multi7001 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2022 (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.