Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SudShare

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SudShare[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)

Accepted it only to propose it to AFD after discussing it with the creator. There are some grounds for notability but I have been on the fence. Hence, bringing it here for community to decide. My discussion with creator is here [1]. There is some more legacy discussion at deletion review that is worth looking at [2]. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The writing here is pretty strong, despite the paid contributions template it is generally encyclopedic. The citations from a diversity of news sources suggest notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Caleb Stanford with regards to why the paid contributions template is there, the article previously did have legitimate WP:PROMO issues, though I believe those have since been resolved. In the article talk page, I was told that the template would be removed once brought to mainspace, though clearly that hasn't happened yet. It may be because of the ongoing AFD nomination, but as this is my first AFD, I'm not sure if that's standard or not. Hope that helps to clarify :) Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm very much biased here, being both the author of the article as well as having a declared conflict of interest (I was a paid employee of SudShare at the time, and though I have since parted ways, I still personally know a number of people involved), but I would like to voice, for the record, my opinion that this article should be kept. I've participated in an in-depth discussion about this previously (as linked in the nomination above), but very briefly, the citations should meet notability criteria, what was previously flagged as being WP:PROMO has been removed, and I'm personally of a generally inclusionist ethos when dealing with edge cases (though I'm not sure this even is much of an edge case), leading to an overall strong keep from me.

Use this opinion as you will, acknowledging that it should be read as less of a vote, but more of a statement of my general position for reference purposes. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Abundant RS here discussing this Company, which also is of note for establishing a novel new business in a large number of cities in the US. Easy decision to make it a keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:10, 1 January 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.