Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anorak Technologies

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. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anorak Technologies[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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage is routine press release rehashes about rounds of funding, and substantial coverage of what the business actually does comes from associated sources (the byline on the Finextra article about Anorak's tie to Starling Bank is "Strarling [sic] Bank"). While the source cited for the award describes it as " the prestigious winners of the Life Insurance International Innovation Awards 2018", those awards are mentioned in no other independent source I could find. Largoplazo (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Material without credible reference have been removed and all other references seem to be pointing to credible sources, including ones like techcrunch and AXA's website itself. - Bridge900 (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - industry sourcing would be ok if there were also refs that establish notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are based on routine announcements failing WP:ORGIND. The test is not merely a "credible source" but a source that is in-depth and both functionally and intellectually independent. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:16, 4 January 2019 (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.