Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TerminalFour

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. ✗plicit 01:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TerminalFour

[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 company. Has been PROD'ed several times (most recently by Skyerise) and so likely needs formal AfD to confirm consensus. To my eye, there is no indication that this small (<100 person?) company meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG. In terms of the content, it is overtly promotional, reliant almost entirely on subject's PR materials/website, reads as an extension of that website, and largely expanded by apparent COI/SPA users. In terms of the applicable WP:NCORP criteria, a WP:BEFORE news search returns largely passing mentions and the same routine coverage (funding efforts/etc) we might expect for any other similarly sized/positioned company. Any sources that do exist (and certainly those linked from the article) do not appear to be independent of the subject (being the subject's own website, marketing materials, direct/republished press releases, a website seemingly dedicated to news about CMS companies/products, and some apparent churnalism from a few otherwise "general" news sources). If there are sources to establish notability, I'm not seeing them. This article has been deleted and restored/refurded several times (without community consensus via AfD), so it would be good to confirm consensus one-way-or-the-other and once-and-for-all. Guliolopez (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The rationale in the 2015 PROD was "Searches and examinations of both this and what I found have nothing actually substantial, all sources are either PR or trivial mentions which is exactly what's listed here too." which appears applicable despite its WP:REFUND revival in 2016. As Guliolopez said above, the article and available coverage are typical for a firm of its scale; a 2019 Business Post interview with the founder indicates the firm has fewer than 100 employees and total funding around €2.25M.A firm going about its business, but I am not seeing the depth of coverage which would be needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2021 (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.