Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit Technology Solutions

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Technology Solutions

[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)

Telecommunications company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage is mostly articles about stock prices and acquisitions, which doesn't meet the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Australia. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AFR article, market herald + other sources seem to be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GMH Melbourne. As the AFR article[1] is subscriber only, are you able to help us evaluate whether it amounts to significant and independent coverage of the company? An idea of the article length, scope and summary of content would be useful. Also, a rough proportion of how much of the text is written by the publisher's staff versus that attributable to either direct quotes from Spirit's directors/employees or 'the company said/added' type of remark. Rupples (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The AFR article is based *entirely* on information provided by the company with no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Same content in these other articles around the same date - Latimer Partners, ARN and CRN. Fails the criteria for establishing notability. Similarly, the Market Herald article relies entirely on information provided by the company and quotes from company officials, also fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not seeing enough indepth coverage to pass GNG/NCORP. Rupples (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2023 (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.