Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma AB

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 no consensus‎. No consensus for a concrete outcome has occurred herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma AB[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)

fails WP:CORP; it seems only to be present online in directories ~T P W 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only found one business management study that uses the firm as subject (1). Until more sources are found, the firm doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tutwakhamoe: This is (an ambitious, it seems) bachelor thesis, which might not be obvious if one doesn't speak Swedish, so I don't think we can base too much on that. But there's a row of fairly substantial coverage in Dagens Industri (the dominating business newspaper in Sweden) and Sydsvenskan (the dominating newspaper in southern Sweden) available to subscribers of w:sv:Mediearkivet, so I think it can be kept anyway. /Julle (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough non-trivial coverage in Swedish newspapers for me to consider Sigma relevant, if we look in the one archive I've got access to. There's the 20 February 2018 full-page article in Dagens Industri, "Sigma brädar börskonsulter". I guess this one is an online equivalent, but since it's paywalled I'm not sure. There's "Bildar ny konsultjätte" from 16 June 2017, also in Dagens Industri, and "Dan Olofsson lägger bud på hela Sigma" from Sydsvenskan 21 January 2013, which goes beyond the typical short notice about someone wantin to acquire a company. There's "VD:ns öppna kort hjälpte inte Sigma" (Dagens Industri) 2 November 2000, "Sigma siktar på att tredubbla styrkan" (Sydsvenskan, 4 May 2001) and so on. In short, there's substantial coverage, over time, from more than one source. I've added some of these as sources. /Julle (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All mentioned articles can be double-checked by anyone with access to sv:Mediearkivet, which would include students and staff at Swedish universities as well as editors who have access through Wikimedia Sweden. /Julle (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional WP:COI, written January-February 2010 by Jetplett. Same editor also created Danir AB (2010-01-15), Thanda Private Game Reserve (2010-01-15), Star for Life (2010-02-08) — Maile (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66: The article created by Jetplett in 2010 was indeed promotional and not at all what we want for encyclopedic content. But basically nothing remains of that article? It's been edited by ~25 persons over 13 years since then. It should be judged on its own merits, not based on whether an earlier version was a promotional COI article. /Julle (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is now supported by reliable sourcing from major swedish news outlets. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The references are well known and establishing notability now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaikha Habiba (talk • contribs) 08:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. references establishes notability and are good. BabbaQ (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources in the article are routine brief business news, some of it sourced from company information, and a mention, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Routine business news about a business transaction, not SIGCOV showing notability	1. "Sigma buys two Internet companies" . Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish). 11/12/1999 . Retrieved 2023-05-12 .
Routine business news, about a bid for the company, not SIGCOV showing notability	2. ^ "Bid for Sigma" . Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish). 2008-03-27 . Retrieved 2023-05-12 .
Brief mention, not SIGCOV	3. ^ Heirn, Pontus (20 February 2018). "Sigma boards stock market consultants". Dagens Industri (in Swedish). p. 10.
Routine business news, about proposed business transaction, not SIGCOV showing notability	4. ^ Satz, Lotta (21 February 2013). "Dan Olofsson bids for all of Sigma". Southern Sweden . p. 25.
Routine business news, about company forecasts, not SIGCOV showing notability	5. ^ Ericson, Niklas (4 May 2001). "Sigma Aims to Triple Strength". Sydsvenskan (in Swedish).

// Timothy :: talk 04:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue: I have to disagree with your source assessment of sources 3 and 5, and maybe 4.

1 and 2 are short, brief mentions. Source 3 is a full-page, 1000 word article, which you have described as "Brief mention". I disagree that source 5 is routine business news; its focus is not on company forecasts and I'd say it's more of an article (~800 words) on the company and what it has been doing in general than because of its forecasts. The fact that whoever wrote the headline chose to focus on that aspect doesn't define the text. I also think source 4 goes beyond the typical routine business news, but that's debatable. /Julle (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 29 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.