Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenbriar Capital Corp

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbriar Capital Corp

[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)

Standard run of the mill corp - no meaningful coverage, just the typical PR, funding and passing mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 19:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the references are sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

could you please elaborate on which sources you find to be sufficient and how press releases, passing mentions and primary sources satisfy the criteria? Praxidicae (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTED. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per your guideline link Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above - emphasis mine. In the absence of actual in depth, meaningful coverage, merely being listed is insufficient, so unless you can provide in-depth coverage, it still fails WP:NCORP. Praxidicae (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE would have enabled you to find this source, this source, this source, many others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the fact that it seems promotional and might need to be rewritten, the company is notable as it is being traded publicly in the Canadian stock exchange. Lapablo (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two of the three sources provided above are "contributed opinions". I wouldn't cite them. wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 1 March 2019 (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.