Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namaste Technologies

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste Technologies[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)

So! This article looks beautifully referenced and clearly notable, if you're not paying attention to the content of the references. But if you are, you can see it's a pile of hogwash.

CBC: Trivial mention, article substantially about something else.
Forbes 1 and 2: Forbes contributors are not reliable sources.
Financial Post, BNN: Appear lovely but on inspection both are "provided by Market One Media Group for commercial purposes," so that's a big nope.
Oracle Dispatch: Low-audience blogazine. This is actually one of the better sources, which is sad, and doesn't bode well.
MarketScreener: Business listing/stats site. Not in-depth content.
SmartCompany: Tagline is that they cater "to Australia's entrepreneurs, small and medium business owners and business managers." In other words, this is a targeted-audience publication, not indicative of general-audience notice the way WP:N demands.
Microcap Daily: Again, targeted-audience blogazine: "Micro Cap Daily is an equity news and research organization focusing on micro and small cap companies." No.
Proactive Investors: Scroll on down to the bottom of the page and you'll see "This record is published on behalf of Namaste Technologies Inc, which is a paid client of ProactiveInvestors." Once again, nope.

What do we get when we put this all together? A bunch of junk that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, that's what. And trying to search for anything better is a wash, because every hit I found was more of the same: churnalism, low-rent blogazines, and paid content. It's time for this article to go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the analysis of the sources, which don't seem to pass muster, along with the fact that I couldn't find anything that did when I looked them up. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there is other media coverage from national newspapers:

To be fairer notability isn't just based on "coverage." It has to not be trivial topics as defined by WP:NCORP. Which all of the sources you refrenced could likely be considered as. Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Adamant1. Java Hurricane 04:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk📧) 19:57, 28 July 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.