Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tungsten Network

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tungsten Network[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Sources seem to consist of press releases/PR, primary sources, and such. If you disagree, please explain how it meets the notability guidelines in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because...". Thank you, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the guidance. To give a little background on why I created this article in the first place, I started by finding the OB10 page on Wikipedia, and was considering updating and improving it. Looking deeper, I found that OB10 had been acquired by Tungsten Network in 2013. I was hoping to create a page for the newer iteration of the company, and then either merge or redirect the OB10 page into the new one. With the recent improvements, this is what I see:

---- This article meets the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (companies) for "Publicly traded corporations" because it is freely traded on the London Stock Exchange as (TUNG), Tungsten Corporation Plc.

---- This article meets the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (companies) for "Publicly traded corporations" by establishing notability via third-party citations from the London Stock Exchange, Bloomberg, The Yorkshire Post, Computer Weekly, PYMNTS, Spend Matters UK/Europe, ProactiveInvestors, and (debatably) Trade and Forfaiting Review.

---- This article meets the criteria for Wikipedia:General notability guideline, as no original research was needed to extract this content, while the article makes use of reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I'd like to do this right, and as a relatively new Wikipedian, I'm hoping for some guidance. Is this what was needed to establish notability and preserve the article, or is more needed before the Sunday deadline? Will pieces of this article need to be trimmed/culled before it can be launched?

...Notes/comments on updates since the article was flagged...

Looking into the notability guidelines you've cited, I see that along with pointing out that the company is publicly owned, it was both relevant and important to also note that they're listed on the London Stock Exchange -- I've added that piece in, which I feel does a lot to help to better establish the company's notability.

Additionally, I've added a set of better citations. The current list includes third-party citations from the London Stock Exchange, Bloomberg, The Yorkshire Post, Computer Weekly, PYMNTS, Spend Matters UK/Europe, ProactiveInvestors, and (debatably) Trade and Forfaiting Review. I'll make an effort to continue to develop this in the next few days as well, but my house is being painted, which has been disruptive to working on things like this at home, and I had originally planned further development of this article as a longer-running, ongoing process. The company, in its current form (after the acquisition of OB10 and the 2013 rebanding/transition to Tungsten Network) is still relatively new, and I've seen articles and new sources being published fairly regularly. I imagine that the company's notability will continue to develop as time goes on. MushuNeak (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument I find compelling is being listed on LSE. The secondary sources coverage is either in passing (see my comments on Economist/Computer Weekly below), or poor, ex. Yorkshire Post [1] "article" seems like a rewritten press release - no journalistic value whatsoever. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm tossing this in, per my reasons above. Learning more about this process as I read other discussions. MushuNeak (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Existing sources to show it easily clears WP:GNG. The fact that articles about a business are in business press is unremarkable and expected, not reason to ignore them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eggishorn: Which sources? Please note that per my comment below this article has some clearly fake references (like The Economist article which has a single passing sentence on the company) or the Computer Weekly one which doesn't mention it at all. What sources convinced you, through their in-depth, reliable coverage of this company, that it is notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, Yorkshire Post, Growth Company and Spend Matters, among others. Most especially, the Computer Weekly' article, which is extensive. I would return your own caution about reading the sources before !voting. The Computer Weekly article is all about the flagship product under a previous corporate name, as the other sources document. It alone is nearly sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several of the sources are clearly WP:RS, e.g. Bloomberg, The Economist and Computer Weekly. Tip - link to them in the references. There's a big difference between a clean WOT report and a link to the Wiki article about the source. Narky Blert (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Narky Blert: I am very fond of The Economist. Unfortunately, TE article is NOT ABOUT THE company. IT just quotes one of its workers in a single short sentence ([2]). It is totally irrelevant for establishing notability. Being mentioned in passing by reliable sources is not enough for GNG/NCORP. Please, read the sources before saying they are sufficient. I also hope that the closing admin remembers this is not a vote. Regarding Bloomberg, we have three links: one seem a generic directory entry, which is not considered sufficient (since the entry criteria are not clear) and they all seem down ATM for me and not in Internet Archive, so if you can access them please review them in more detail for us; and then the Computer Weekly one - which DOES NOT MENTION THE COMPANY AT ALL: [3]. Setting aside inaccessible Bloomberg pieces, the other two sources you quote are pure red herrings - they sound reliable, but they are fakes, not establishing notability, added there as a common spammer tactic of WP:BOMBARDMENT, in hope that people will see "plenty of reliable references", skip on accessing them and vote keep to the spammers delight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be a run of the mill company with about $30 million in annual revenues. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2017 (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.