Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team8

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. SpinningSpark 17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Team8[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:NCORP. Lack of reputable sources and dubious editing history. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a nice flow of reputable, independent sources that demonstrate the subject's notability. However, two of them - TechCrunch and Forbes - are questionable in terms of reliability. The Forbes source is written by a contributor and not a staff writer; no editorial oversight exists with contributors. The TechCrunch source as a publisher is often questioned. The other sources though are reliable and compliment TechCrunch and Forbes. Multi7001 (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Forbes and TechCrunch (admittingly they are not very reliable as Multi mentioned. But they can be used to gauge notability in my opinion) covered this company, most reports seem to come from Israeli websites: Calcalist (calcalistech.com, calcalist.co.il), nocamels.com, and the Jerusalem Post. Note that calcalist seems to be the main source of reports, both in Hebrew and in English, smells fishy. This company or group may be somewhat notable in Israel (and even here it appears rather obscure; not a lot Hebrew reporting on it.), but internationaly or in the anglosphere? Definitely not. Av = λv (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that something may not be well-known in the Anglosphere does not mean that it is not notable. What matters is whether it has been covered in reliable sources of any language from any country. And judging by the sources included in the article, this one has. Mlb96 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as follows:
- This TechCrunch article is based entirely on an announcement by Intel. For example, here's an article from the day before from the Jerusalem Post covering the exact same announcement with the same details even using the same quotes from company execs. Not "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
- Reuters article is also entirely based on a company announcement (second sentence confirm it too) with no "Independent Content". Here's the same announcement covered by the New York Times. Fails WP:ORGIND
- The Forbes article is written by a "contributor" therefore fails as a WP:RS
- This Times of Israel article dated 23rd October 2018 is based entirely on this Press Release of the same date with the addition of an interview. No "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
- The Bloomberg reference makes no secret of the fact it is based entirely on an announcement and interview with various involved executives. It has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.

Contrary to some of the comments above, the criteria for establishing notability is not based on the quantity of coverage and it matters not a whit the language and the country. If source exist in martian, post them here and if they meet NCORP, all good. But none of those references are good for the purposes of establishing notability and since I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. and as per HighKing's assessment and logic. - Hatchens (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Establishing notability through Israeli sources (or any other country) is perfectly legitimate. However, I agree with HighKing's analysis of the sources above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 13 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.