Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jobster

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. No editor has put forth why any given reference meets the criteria set forth in CORPDEPTH, ORGIND, of generically, GNG. Therefore by strength of argument I judge consensus to be "delete". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jobster[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)

Limited notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Sourcing is not well-formatted too.TH1980 (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be plenty of independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and content doesn't help its cause MaskedSinger (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources exist to meet WP:GNG. Please review WP:BEFORE. Re: content, formatting, etc, see WP:NOTCLEANUP. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the articles you reference meet these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dennis Bratland is completely write. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs a major clean-up, but is notable per the significant coverage in major newspapers as shown by Dennis Bratland. --Surachit (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:RS, though a sudden rush of media coverage might not help the cause and the article with get ~~deleted~~ -- I mean fired. Chronic and consistent media coverage is good, though. TheEditster (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the Keep !votes above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. "Sufficient sources exist" is not mentioned in the guidelines and is invalid as a reason - volume of references has no bearing on establishing notability if those references fail the criteria. The references added invariably are mentions-in-passing or fail WP:ORGIND as they are based on company announcements or interviews. Similarly, "significant coverage in major newspapers" is demonstrably untrue since none of the coverage is "significant" but more importantly all the references either fails WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND (or both). Finally, "chronic and consistent media coverage" is also not part of the guidelines. 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. The references in the article fail. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 18 July 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.