Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zagg

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 01:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zagg[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)

Looks like a WP:ROTM company who is only a distributor of accessories. The page mostly has details about the management structure change and has only standard notices and routine coverage of acquisitions, which as per WP:ORGDEPTH does not make the company notable. It was created by an SPA and was proposed for deletion in the past (unrelated but FYI). Trolli Onida (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PC Mag and the Verge talk about a service the company offers, I'm not sure that's enough for notability here though. Agree that most sourcing is about management changes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this company is notable but 500+ million U.S. dollars in sales is not "run of the mill", at least not in my country.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sounds impressive and usually for a stock traded on Nasdaq and at those revenue levels we'd find analyst reports which discuss the company in detail. But I cannot locate any reports. We need references that meet NCORP. I'm happy to revisit my !vote if someone locates something but as of now, there's nothing by way of sources that meets our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 08:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd years ago so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page has 27 sources and was also a listed company. But, sources don't help with notability. If stock listing of companies was enough to make it notable, then it could make sense. I don't think that's the case for notability. Revenue is good, but not a subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as per criteria.CourtseyDriver (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2023 (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.