Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick&Bolt

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. Sandstein 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brick&Bolt[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)

An unnotable organisation that doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Sliekid (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided references to all the content in the page, could you let me know what to edit(change) in the page to prevent deletion. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitinBnB (talk • contribs)
Delete In addition to being not notable, the article is highly promotional, as can be sen from the origin story, typical of what PR people write for their clients. Even more important, Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a small and relatively new business, and the content is promotional in tone. The referencing is repetitive and based on press releases. Fails WP:NCORP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All refs are derived from press releases that the company has received start-up funding. David notMD (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as others have mentioned, reads in a promotional way, not a significant company Eyebeller (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The founder is my friend and it was my idea to start a Wikipedia page as a gift for starting a successful business.I am open to suggestions and ready to change anything in the page to ensure the page doesnt get deleted. Please do let me know what to do to avoid deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NitinBnB (talk • contribs)

NitinBnB, please read WP:COI. AllyD (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Cullen's comments about the article. I think the kind of sources used is problematic, as they are bound to publish about this kind of company anyway. Mathias (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I read the COI page. I understand there is a conflict of interest, but I have written the page stating only facts from the references provided. I assure you that the sources mentioned are not paid publishing and are pure facts. I had written the page referring another Wikipedia page "Log9 materials" which use the same type of reference materials, so I assumed the sources provided will be accepted. Please feel free to edit the page{{request edit}}. I am new here and am trying to contribute without disrupting any Wikipedia guidelines. NitinBnB (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Log 9 Materials should be nominated for deletion, as much of the content is about it having received start-up funding. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient sources for this small company.--Hippeus (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant promotional article with sources entirely based on funding annoucements (paid PR).Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falling way short of WP:NCORP; could well be deleted per WP:SNOW Spiderone 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing is essentially standard notices and the article as writ is promotional. A Google News search only returns more standard notices (string: Brick&bolt). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider not deleting the page, I had referred pages like "Log9 materials" and "HouseJoy", these pages were published long before "Brick&Bolt" and are not deleted. I am confused why Brick&Bolt is up for deletion where as those pages have the same sources, same type of article structure and are not considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitinBnB (talk • contribs) 04:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for more specific details, but basically this discussion is an assessment of this article's suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia on its own merits. It's quite possible that those other articles you mentioned shouldn't exist or should've never been created, but that's another discussion for a different time. So, if you feel this article should be kept, you should clarify why in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; not in terms of other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small private software development company of 66 individuals. Entirely non-notable. Fails WP:NCORP on my levels. scope_creep^Talk 19:38, 20 November 2020 (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.