Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FaktorTel (2nd nomination)

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 23:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FaktorTel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

For a company that has existed for almost 20 years it gets hardly any coverage to meet WP:CORP. It gets a mere 4 gnews hits, 3 of those are industry publications. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Australia. AllyD (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This subject was notable in 2008 as can be established from the existing SIGCOV in the references. Notability is not temporary Jack4576 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is stricter on notability these days, secondly I did not find sufficient coverage. There is no rule against renominating an article especially after such a long time. Notability is not met here unless you can provide evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And using your theory on permanent notability, no article could ever be renominated for deletion. If you had your online encyclopedia including all Brisbane

councillors and "large" shopping malls you could do that but you're participating on Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be any coverage which satisfies CORPDEPTH. I don't have much against industry publications, but those mentions in gnews are insubstantial. There is also regular mention in Australian PC World, which can be accessed from TWL, but again, those do not go beyond namechecks, not nearly enough to even beginning to evaluate against the other criteria like potential SPIP. Hits in publicly accessible and digitised newspaper archives mostly turn up people named Faktor, who have the telephone..., I am not holding out for substantial coverage in more local news sources, and even if found those would nonetheless fail AUD. The only thing that might plausibly have significant coverage outside what is already in the article would be the fourth ghit, "Sun, sand and an $18.7m weekender for Michael Omeros" in The Australian [1] which I will admit I do not currently have access to. We have essentially that, and the article from The Age. (and I suppose "In business with net phone", which I also do not have access to, it not being archived pre-2011 (and pre-301) like "Hidden traps in internet phone system" [2]) Were this a bio, perhaps the If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial clause could be invoked, though for depth approximately equal to The Age's treatment of FaktorTel and director of operations Cowling combined, I would expect the n of multiple to be very large. This is not a bio. We have two articles of unknown depth and one known not to be a namecheck, but does not come close to CORPDEPTH. Under CORP, even if the other two sources clear SIRS comfortably, I would be inclined towards a delete.

I believe this is more than sufficient to be considered a reasonable level of due diligence. If you have sources that you believe meet CORPDEPTH, Jack4576, I am certainly open to revising my opinion. At present, I do not see a plausible path for an article on this subject to be retained under our current guidelines or practices. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Alpha3031. This does not meet WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 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.