Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opontia

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opontia

[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)

2021 startup. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All we have are the current sources which seem limited to press releases and their rewrites about company securing funding and doing some investments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think there is a problem with this article, as it contains a good number of references given its size, and the company's name has been circulated in a number of press articles, it has a profile on Crunchbase and CB Insights, and it has also been mentioned on Forbes Middle East's 50 Most-Funded Startups, and this, in my opinion, makes it achieve sufficient notability. If we are going to delete this article, then we have to delete thousands of articles like it that do not even meet the minimum standards.-Adil Faouzi (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 Articles in TechCrunch, one in Reuters, one in Harvard Business Review (Turkish version), that is pretty significant. There are several in-depth articles too, even tough mostly foreign press, they appear reliable. Caphadouk (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization. Neither the volume of references nor mentions in reliable sources are part of the criteria, the articles themselves must standalone. WP:NCORP requires 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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This a copy-and-paste text from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeWelcome_(2nd_nomination) --Geysirhead (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read both carefully you'll see it isn't a copy and paste. But so what even if it was? For other editors, just be aware that Geysirhead is bludgeoning the AfD at BeWelcome, edit warring (and was blocked less than a month ago for the same thing) at BeWelcome, and now stalking and harassing me for the temerity of !voting to delete an article (that this person never edited before but suddenly is showing a deep interest) at AfD. Hmmmm .. something strange here. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting comments (look their contributions) without researching is not ok. Please, provide some proof of your research on Opontia. And please discuss the arguments of Caphadouk and Adil Faouzi in a reasonable manner. Then, we can be in good faith again. Thank you in advance.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a pretty petty and absurd comment. If you bothered to check my contributions properly you'll see I always do my research and read all the references and search for more and often provide a breakdown of every reference and the reasons why I believe it fails NCORP. If you genuinely were commenting in good faith you'd already know that. If you wish, go ahead and open an ANI but comments like this at an AfD (and the ones on my Talk page) are not only irrelevant but disruptive. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: current citations are good for notability, although some news are about fundraising, most contain also info about the company and are in-depth. Chelokabob (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough sources to establish WP:CORPDEPTH.--Geysirhead (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The volume of references is largely irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability so long as there exists a minimum two that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Doesn't matter if there's 1,000 references and they're all regurgitated press releases or company announcements. Also for the sake of argument lets assume (unless an obvious blog or something) that references appear in "reliable" sources - editors trying to argue that an article in the NYT or TechCrunch must automatically confer notability on the topic company are mistaken. As per WP:SIRS, each individual reference must meet the criteria - each reference must contain in-depth information on the topic company and also contain "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet NCORP as follows:
- The wamda.com reference is a "puff profile" based entirely on an interview with the founders and which contains no "Independent Content". Fails WP:ORGIND.
- The ashaeq.com reference is a video of an interview with a co-founder. No "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from webrazzi.com is based entirely on an interview with a co-founder, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
- This from menabytes is based on an announcement from the company to promote their raising of $20m in funding. This from reuters covers the same announcement. Both have no "Independent Content" and both fail WP:ORGIND.
- On a similar note, this from inwestycje.pl is also entirely based on a company announcement with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from bankier.pl is also based entirely on a press release, the same release that this article from pb.pl is based on, again no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- These next two, this from Forbes Middle East and this from Arabian Business both are based on a company announcement sprinkled with quotes from the executives, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from Harvard Business Review (Turkish edition) is a verbatim interview with the General Manager. A primary source, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- These last two, this from Afriqueitnews and this from adsmehub.se are both based on the same company announcement and information provided by the company (or from other interviews), no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.

For those saying that references exist that meet the criteria, please provide links to WP:THREE references which you believe meet the criteria and a short explanation on why (or in the alternative, why the reasoning above is incorrect). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the toughtful analysis. I hope the closing admin will remember WP:AFDNOTAVOTE... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more analysis of source quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find that there are enough quality sources to establish notability even though some of them are interviews. The fact of being written in big business medias and giving in-depth analysis with no promotional tone leads me to think that it deserves Wikipedia page.--Art&football (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? BTW, you realise that even though some of them are interviews is an admission that those references fail WP:ORGIND, right? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for further discussion of source quality, not quantity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like there is enough coverage to be notable. Regarding [1] and [2], editor before said they are based on interviews, but if they are not interviews and they dont contain too much quotations, then they are acceptable. As far as I am aware, if the journalist writes a story based on an interview then it is acceptable as it is considered verified and researched. Many articles are about funding, but I found that they contain details about the company which make them in depth. I also don't agree with editor before that an article based on an announcement is not acceptable. It is acceptable as long as they didn't just post what the company press release provided, but added their own commentary and info, meaning it is vetted and researched to be accurate. Also, the company is ranked #12 in top 50 Middle East companies by Forbes. Zeddedm (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company seems comparatively new, but judging from the references available and the acquisitions, it appears to pass NCORP. As far as the definition of secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY we have "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources" which makes the references like Techcrunch and Reuters written by staffs of respective media secondary. So these are acceptable independent content and are definitely not primary sources. Only press releases and company produced contents aren't acceptable references as per WP:ORGIND. Although the article may need pruning as it mentions few unimportant events/facts like "Opontia buys and grows e-commerce brands in the CEEMEA (Central & Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa)". Cirton (talk) 08:02, 1 March 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.