Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callsign (company)

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. ✗plicit 12:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Callsign (company)

[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)

Non-notable biometrics company. Article written by individual connected to the company. Secondary sources do not refer significantly to the company and primarily just involve quotations from one of its executives on a somewhat-related topic. BrigadierG (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Out of the only reliable sources listed, Reuters is a good source with SIGCOV, BBC is a reliable source but only contained a passing mention, Forbes is a contributor post and not of a staff writer, and TechCrunch is questionable given its editorial practices. The Financial Times article cannot be opened given the paywall. More reliable sources may be needed to avoid deletion, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multi7001 per WP:CORPDEPTH, routine announcements such as raised capital are not considered SIGCOV. BrigadierG (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrigadierG, I disagree. I don't consider the subject's raising of $35 million a routine announcement. I don't see any other such announcements. The Reuters article, which was written by a reputable journalist, is significant coverage of the subject's value. But eitherway, the article is almost like a press release and should not be used alone to establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it isn't so much CORPDEPTH but ORGIND to consider when reading articles that appear to simply repeat/regurgitate announcements and press releases. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the kind of thing I wrote about in WP:SERIESA. An article just about raising money, and yes, even 35 million dollars, is a routine announcement. This article fails utterly to support notability. The techcrunch source, for instance, is primarily dependent and relies heavily on an interview with the CEO. FalconK (talk) 10:20, 16 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.