Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ketto (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 14:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ketto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ketto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability self promotion and self made article, all the news are self press release (paid news). @@@XyX talk 13:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There were a few legitimate sources, but the fact that this is the third nomination and there hasn't been more done doesn't portend well for this article meeting a lasting notability threshold. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but let the AfD run so that we have something to point back to when it's created. That said, I have some concerns about the nomination based on an ANI post so we'll see how this shakes out. Star Mississippi 20:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note The article has been tagged for CSD G11 by an admin. @@@XyX talk 21:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. @Deepfriedokra I won't contest it, but if we want to avoid a 4th AfD I think we'll need to salt or let this run. Just my .02. Star Mississippi 21:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ARTSPAM worthy of WP:G11. Does not meet sourcing requirement for notability requirements. Detagged to let this run. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources that are legitimate do not treat the subject in the breadth and depth required for significant coverage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Jéské Couriano for detailed source analysis. Verifies WP:ARTSPAM. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I, for one, use salt sparingly. I think we can do without it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - and I will go into Bastard Helper From Hell mode here to help preclude a 4th AfD; refer to the top table on User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
A Google search (string: ketto) isn't turning much of anything up, either; it's mainly news reports about Ketto being misused, more routine coverage, more press releases, and overall not a whole lot of substantial, non-routine, independent reporting on the company specifically. For these issues, I have to argue in favour of deletion; for the tendency to emulate a phoenix I have to argue in favour of salting the title post-deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jéské above. A little salt might save a return to this later on. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All sources are either self-published, press-release amplification sites, or other sources of marginal utility (i.e. brief mentions in other sources). I don't think this is salt territory yet; there is a chance this could become notable in the future, but this should not be a Wikipedia topic right now. --Jayron32 13:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My call for SALT was to avoid a 4th AfD. The first two were essentially expired PRODs, but I dont think we need to revisit this until/unless it becomes notable. AfC could be viable. Star Mississippi 21:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP, due to they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Also by a before search turns up nothing significantly. Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP. Might add a dash of salt. 🧂 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires 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. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any that does, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:49, 26 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ketto_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1079770465"