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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. I'm closing this as a Soft Delete as one of the participants here has only 45 edits so I'm just considering this discussion as having 1 supporting Delete statement. LizRead!Talk! 01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NCORP. The citations in the article do not demonstrate that this article subject is notable, as per the NCORP table below:
NCORP 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.
Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Also, this is a regurgitation of a press release.
Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Additionally, this is an interview with the CEO that is largely not independent content.
BizJournals is reliable, no reason to dispute that this indeed was the interview.
This seems to primarily be about Auditoria.
Per NCORP, interviews by executives are primary sources.
Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. It also appears to have churned from this press release.
Not a bylined piece; not sure about the overall reputation of this source for fact-checking and accuracy, but it's taking a lot verbatim from this press release without attribution to it.
Per WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are not considered significant coverage.
public announcements of corporate actions (press releases) are not significant coverage, per NCORP.
Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as... capital transaction, such as raised capital is trivial coverage. The coverage in this piece is all of two sentences describing a capital transaction.
This merely notes the existence of a capital transaction and its funders.
there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability.
This appears to be a marketing blog.
Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as... capital transaction, such as raised capital is trivial coverage.
There is no secondary significant coverage of the company in this blogpost.
there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Additionally, the article appears to be churn of this press release.
– Editorial policies of the website are unclear as to editorial review; piece is not bylined.
WP:NCORP notes that tandard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance are trivial coverage.
there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Additionally, this is an almost verbaitm regurgitation of this press release.
– This is a verbatim press release; see WP:ABOUTSELF.
Moot as clearly non-independent.
NCORP notes that public announcements of corporate actions (press releases) are not secondary sources.
[n]on-notable awards received by the organization are examples of trivial coverage given in WP:ORGDEPTH
Moot as a self-published blog.
Additionally, I am unable to find any additional sources that provide WP:SIRS-level coverage after conducting an online search. There are a number of non-independent blogposts (such as the Forbes Finance Council) and press releases (such as this) I can find that are not included in the article, but nothing else that I see online satisfies both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. As such, there does not appear to exist WP:SIRS for this article subject, and this article should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability guideline of WP:NCORP. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 00:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom. I will note that some of the text is lifted directly from external websites, per Earwig. The article's creator is a properlydisclosed paid editor, so they may have permission to use the verbatim text of press release materials in the page, but I can't find a ticket in VRT related to any of the copied material used in this page. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 00:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV NenChemist (talk) 09:42, 20 October 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.
