Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrak Enterprises: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
added {{Not a ballot}} |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* '''Keep''' Whether a company is subjectively considered ROTM and/or the content focuses on historical business development, neither should be the sole barometer for deletion as they are opinion based. Notability and significant coverage is the benchmark here, and I would challenge that the breadth of independent and reliable citations does meet the standard. Citations include articles from the [[Sydney Morning Herald]] and [[Australian Financial Review]] which are Australia's equivalent to the [[Washington Post]] and [[Wall Street Journal]]... highly notable, reliable and independent news outlets. Considering the company is the subject matter of all citations (and not as a trivial mention), that should meet the threshold of significant coverage, satisfying [[WP:GNG]]. Granted the article could be fleshed out more, but that shouldn't mean it should be deleted entirely. — [[User:NeonRoo|NeonRoo]] ([[User talk:NeonRoo|talk]]) 01:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''' Whether a company is subjectively considered ROTM and/or the content focuses on historical business development, neither should be the sole barometer for deletion as they are opinion based. Notability and significant coverage is the benchmark here, and I would challenge that the breadth of independent and reliable citations does meet the standard. Citations include articles from the [[Sydney Morning Herald]] and [[Australian Financial Review]] which are Australia's equivalent to the [[Washington Post]] and [[Wall Street Journal]]... highly notable, reliable and independent news outlets. Considering the company is the subject matter of all citations (and not as a trivial mention), that should meet the threshold of significant coverage, satisfying [[WP:GNG]]. Granted the article could be fleshed out more, but that shouldn't mean it should be deleted entirely. — [[User:NeonRoo|NeonRoo]] ([[User talk:NeonRoo|talk]]) 01:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
**Not an unreasonable position to take, by the article creator. But just so there's no misunderstanding, this AfD wasn't moved on ROTM etc. grounds; the nom clearly states that it's because the subject fails GNG/CORP notability. And 'fleshing it out more' would only help if that means adding sources that satisfy notability requirements. --[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC) |
**Not an unreasonable position to take, by the article creator. But just so there's no misunderstanding, this AfD wasn't moved on ROTM etc. grounds; the nom clearly states that it's because the subject fails GNG/CORP notability. And 'fleshing it out more' would only help if that means adding sources that satisfy notability requirements. --[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
*** Thanks for the constructive feedback. I've made further improvements to this article to include additional citations that do not specifically focus on funding coverage. Although I would argue that funding coverage and business history is still information and facts that someone would find valuable. Also note that most of this article was constructed either verbatim or paraphrased from the citations with minimal editorialising to avoid a conflict of interest. [[User:NeonRoo|NeonRoo]] ([[User talk:NeonRoo|talk]]) 10:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Keep''' The article's topic does appear to have multiple reliable sources to meet notability requirements. [[User:Hapanyc|Hapanyc]] ([[User talk:Hapanyc|talk]]) 23:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''' The article's topic does appear to have multiple reliable sources to meet notability requirements. [[User:Hapanyc|Hapanyc]] ([[User talk:Hapanyc|talk]]) 23:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)</small> |
||
Revision as of 10:46, 15 April 2021
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Matrak Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable ROTM tech business. Sources cover it only in the context of funding rounds, no sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Keep Whether a company is subjectively considered ROTM and/or the content focuses on historical business development, neither should be the sole barometer for deletion as they are opinion based. Notability and significant coverage is the benchmark here, and I would challenge that the breadth of independent and reliable citations does meet the standard. Citations include articles from the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review which are Australia's equivalent to the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal... highly notable, reliable and independent news outlets. Considering the company is the subject matter of all citations (and not as a trivial mention), that should meet the threshold of significant coverage, satisfying WP:GNG. Granted the article could be fleshed out more, but that shouldn't mean it should be deleted entirely. — NeonRoo (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not an unreasonable position to take, by the article creator. But just so there's no misunderstanding, this AfD wasn't moved on ROTM etc. grounds; the nom clearly states that it's because the subject fails GNG/CORP notability. And 'fleshing it out more' would only help if that means adding sources that satisfy notability requirements. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive feedback. I've made further improvements to this article to include additional citations that do not specifically focus on funding coverage. Although I would argue that funding coverage and business history is still information and facts that someone would find valuable. Also note that most of this article was constructed either verbatim or paraphrased from the citations with minimal editorialising to avoid a conflict of interest. NeonRoo (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not an unreasonable position to take, by the article creator. But just so there's no misunderstanding, this AfD wasn't moved on ROTM etc. grounds; the nom clearly states that it's because the subject fails GNG/CORP notability. And 'fleshing it out more' would only help if that means adding sources that satisfy notability requirements. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The article's topic does appear to have multiple reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Hapanyc (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- KeepThis article does feature reliable information about Matrak entreprises and is meeting the standard required in WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Bellissen Benac Margaux (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, we are honoured to have your first-ever Wikipedia contribution at this AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Most of the sourcing looks like a routine funding coverage, not much to establish notability of the article subject. Good to see this AfD brought some of our editors back from a long sleep. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)