Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoola

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 11:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoola[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)

non notable , the company don't have good references AlexandruAAlu (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In-depth coverage Business Insider,CNBC, and Digiday. Not a great deal of sources to work with, however. I've taken a stab at removing irrelevant content and adding tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.95 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. You should take a read of the WP:ORGIND section and the bit about "Independent Content". None of these references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The Business Insider reference is really a profile of one of the topic company's clients, with a small amount of information and quotes provided by the CEO of the topic company. There is no in-depth information about the company and no "Independent Content", fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The CNBC reference relies entirely on an Squawk Box interview and other quotes from the CEO, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Finally, this Digiday reference profiles a client first and then relies entirely no information provided by the CEO and the company, also fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the topic is a company, we require references that discuss the *company* in detail and the information must be provided by a source unaffiliated with the company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. CORPDEPTH requires in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) ORGIND requires "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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company - articles that simply regurgitate quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews and basic information and descriptions fail ORGIND.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company and topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft. Sources currently in the article do not support encyclopedic notability. It is possible such sources could be found or could develop, but the article as it stands does not meet the sctrictures of WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 02:54, 29 May 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.