This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many
deletion lists coordinated by
WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few
scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Business.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's
deletion policy and
WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Borderline G11, no indication of notability or significance for this IMAX theater, Sourcing isn't of WP:ORG level depth
StarMississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Independent coverage in rather reliable sources, significant and in depth, about this multiplex, and backing the claim that it houses the biggest screen in India! (other sources claim it is one of the world's largest 3D IMax). So, yes, there are various indications of significance and notability and it seems to meet
WP:GNG. A redirect to
Culture_of_Hyderabad#Film is imv absolutely warranted anyway. Opposed to deletion. (G11? "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So basically, borderline G11 is not G11, if it was just that the tone and content may have been partially promotional, Afds are not for cleanup and given existing coverage, this potential issue was easily fixed; added 2 refs and trimmed the page but this can evidently be improved and expanded, thank you) -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The subject of this article is a business with no proven notability. As written, it contains no references. A limited web search reveals no feature stories or in-depth articles that would indicate that this organization should be included in an encyclopedia. A single story in Daily Variety [
[1]] from 2006 was all I could unearth
I had previously submitted it for PROD but the reviewer somehow felt this was worth keeping.
Volcom95 (
talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Appears to fail
WP:NCORP - coverage seems to be routine at best with a few promotional pieces thrown in.
Jellyfish (mobile) (
talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This article does in fact seem to be made for pay, and the sources just do not line up here either. I only found this page after looking to add an image book cover in the infobox, but then I looked into it further and discovered that the page itself really qualifies for a deletion AfD.
Iljhgtn (
talk) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article on a non-notable research company's survey, published between 2013 and 2018. These picked up the expected passing mentions of the named top brands but I am not seeing
evidence that the published survey was in itself
notable.
AllyD (
talk) 09:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The article appears to simply promote a paid survey by a market research company. Further, no significant third-party media organizations are referencing the study, indicating that it has minimal to no value in and of itself.
Volcom95 (
talk) 07:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per nom. Page is
WP:SYNTH and is made for
WP:PROMO. Research is not notable and not backed by any secondary independent sources.
RangersRus (
talk) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This appears to be one program for one university that does not seem to be notable in itself.
Sargdub (
talk) 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not only is it unsourced, a quick google search reveals it isn't exclusive to one or two university.
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: To be honest, I think this can be considered a G11 case, as it seems like a pure advertisement of HKUST and NYU on their dual degree program. Just like what the IP user above said, a simple Google search can tell this program title is not exclusive to these two universities. Regardless, I found no sources which covered this program, not even some passing mentions in articles merely by the program's name. Undoubtedly fails GNG. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul) 13:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Dozy Mmobuosi: Almost repeated content from the founder. I fund no reason why it shouldn't be redirected. There is an atom of notability per the allegations about the foundation not the founder that is keepable; though I have see almost all of them in the main founder article. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet
WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing
WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - clearly a notable database as per this "github stars" metric demonstrating developer/popularity growth, putting it amongst the likes of
MongoDB. It's company has been also extensively covered by
TechCrunch.
No issue with the article being improved/edited to remove promotional material, but your statement regarding the "technical features" is false, as a developer, I am unaware of many databases offering this level of multi-modality. At worst, this is merely
WP:NOTJUSTYET and should be drafted instead of deleted. Mr Vilitalk 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Additionally, currently the company has nothing to gain by "selling" it on Wikipedia, the database is open sourced.
However, the company does plan to release a cloud offering in the future but until then - I see no issue in having this page as it provides valuable information for developers looking to learn more about SurrealDB. It's likely this topic will continue to increase in notability. Mr Vilitalk 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Regarding 'Github stars', see the discussion on
Talk:SurrealDB. WP:OR graphics based on 'favourites' amongst random self-selected Github users are in no shape or form of any significance when assessing subject notability, as you have already been told. And as for the company having nothing to gain, I only need point to what you yourself wrote in the article: Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - The quote about the database service industry market potential has been removed as it was taken from an article where Matt Turck announced their investment and could come across as marketing. This article should be kept as it accurately describes their company and maintains a neutral point of view.
Briggs 360 (
talk) 12:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You need to distinguish between an article about specific software, which this is supposed to be, and an article about the company. We have specific notability criteria for the latter,
WP:CORP, which I don't think would be met - and if it were, we'd have a separate article on it.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think usually we'd use CORP for commercial software anyway, by way of
WP:PRODUCT, that's where
WP:NSOFT links to.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I'd forgotten that WP:CORP is the relevant notability criteria for software. Which doesn't alter the fact that articles are supposed to be about one subject, not two. If the article is about the software, it has to be demonstrated that the software is notable through significant independent coverage discussing the software, not the company. If it were about the company, we'd need significant coverage of that - and then we'd write an article about the company. The article as it stands consists entirely of poorly-sourced and promotional content regarding the product, with a 'History and development' section tossed into the middle which doesn't discuss the history or development of the product at all. It is a confusing mess, trying to concoct notability for one thing by describing another.
Incidentally, if you intend to edit the article further, as you did yesterday, you really need to read
WP:RS first. Citing something like this
[2] does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. It is pure and unadulterated promotional fluff: "The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe." That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one. AndyTheGrump (
talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I... don't think I've edited the page,
AndyTheGrump? You may have confused me with someone else. I do have it on my watchlist for some reason though.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oops, apologies. I've clearly confused you with Briggs 360, who posted the 'Keep' above, and then edited the article. I'll strike out the bit about sourcing.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I guess since I'm here I may as well do one of these:
ORGCRIT assess table
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail
First thing I notice here was the about page linking to
D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.
Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156.
ISBN978-0-13-739262-9.
I can't see anything that clearly meets
WP:ORGCRIT as per my evaluation above, so I'm going to have to go with delete (or, sure, draftify).
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am curious, why can't the dozens of courses, docs and high variety of SurrealDB guides that are unaffiliated with SurrealDB be used as independent, reliable, secondary significant sources of coverage? From a quick google, there's at least dozens of sites talking about SurrealDB from a developer/integrations perspective?
I think our evaluation of such sources are sufficiently divergent that it would not be useful for me to put it in the table. Instead, I think I am going to kick it over to the
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 04:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for creating the discussion Mr Vilitalk 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
weak Delete for now because the sources don't look reliable enough. Like actual news articles. But I will check tomorrow or the day after to make sure. Freedun (
yippity yap) 10:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Arbitrarily0(
talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - I concur with Alpha3031's assessment of the sources identified for this subject. That we're even considering
this, an "official government organization of the Government of Lumina" (
[5]), as a reliable source is a rather damning sign of non-notability. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails NORG; article lists standard business activities, nothing noteworthy. BEFORE shows no substantial RS.
StartGrammarTime (
talk) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply