Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafetyCulture

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. Sandstein 12:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SafetyCulture[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)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; routine business announcements only. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Enough there to meet WP:GNG for mine. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The amount of coverage accrued by the topic may allow for a consideration of a GNG passing, but I doubt it given that GNG calls for significant coverage. Notably, many of the sources cited are not independent of the subject (as seen with both Business News Australia articles, which are both based on WP:PRIMARY information), and none seem to be in-depth. As noted by NCORP, sources cited must be in-depth and non trivial (Most pertinent to this AfD, NCORP is clear that press releases are not seen as in-depth coverage) if they are to be considered as contributing to a subject's notability. I am of the belief that the subject does not meet these criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per Sam. The article doesn't make any claims about this small company being notable. The references given are routine for small specialist firms. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This subject looks like it should be notable if the claims made about it are even half true. My difficulty is that there do not appear to be sufficient IRS to back it up yet. It is certainly being given wide coverage by a very wide range of sources, but much of it is routine and-or churn/indirect primary. Aoziwe (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the delete vote, but disagree on the point that the company may have a claim to significance. Taking this source [1] from May 2018, the company has raised $60 million. In the view of an encyclopedia, this is frankly a paltry amount, and, when considering the majority of sources cited by the article are press releases about the company raising funds, indicates to me that there is no credible claim to significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of claims such as "The SafetyCulture iAuditor mobile app is the world’s most used workplace inspection platform" and that it is used by very big very visible companies. I do not think it matters if we come to the same conclusion for different reasons. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP; promotinalism only for a nn business. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2018 (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.