Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdfind

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. Daniel (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfind[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)

I am filing this on behalf of User:Ewpigs44 who had the following concerns about the article: "Sorry! I work for this company and the user who added our financial information is a bitter former employee. We are a startup with investors and he is using that to misrepresent our finances. We aren't really sure why our company even has a Wikipedia page, is there a way to simply delete the page all together? Thanks so much!"

You can see the conversation here: User_talk:Ewpigs44. I am neutral at the moment and will !vote when I have time to review the article and sourcing. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I trimmed this article when I found it in a backlog late last year and forgot to go back to it to look for notability. There's some sourcing, including this overview and this airport that they work with and some Chicago Tribune articles, if anyone has access. They appear to have notable clients, but I'm not sure if there's enough to say about the company itself to build an article on. I did remove some text that Ewpigs44 contested (see Article Talk) as I concur with him that it doesn't belong in the article. I had removed similar info when I edited the article, but don't recall why I left that. StarM 21:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some coverage of usage of their product ([1] was in "a publication put out by the Chicago Tribune geared toward 18 to 34-year-olds") but I don't see substantial coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 28 March 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.