Trichome

thcscience_admin
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. I recognize that this was created by a long tenured editor, but there is currently no consensus for it to exist in mainspace. It had been draftified once, and that didn't stick. However if someone would like this to work on in draft space, I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remote (company)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Remote (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no claim of notability. Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The cited sources look like churnalism, with some of them discussed at WP:RSN. A WP:BEFORE search showed the same sort of junk. The author, Husond, hasn't divulged a conflict of interest but this seems an odd choice of article to write after having stopped editing for years. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the fact that the account sptrang back to life for this article, it does not mean he has a COI. He could just be a huge fan of the service, etc... When a website is big enough then you will have fans that will do stuff for you.
I would lean towards weak keep if better sourcing can be found, otherwise delete. Rlink2 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see how this company fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It's a $3B valued portfolio company of some of the world's largest private equity and venture capital firms, well covered by reliable sources including Bloomberg. I'm genuinely baffled that this is being nominated for deletion. And yes, I've been inactive for a while - and it was precisely because I noticed that there was no article on this company that I've decided to log back into WP. Húsönd 17:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Looking at the sources available and hunting around some, I'm concerned that the coverage of this company is almost entirely surrounding the funding rounds it's gone through and not much about it, in and of itself. Like, every reference used in this piece is a story about the $300m funding round, which does lean towards the nom's argument that it's press-release based. Husond, can you pin down sources that are independent of the funding and focused on the company itself? I'd be more inclined to keep if so. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was mainly the third funding round that created a lot of press about it. I've worked in the venture capital world and when certain companies raise a lot of money that's when they become relevant and carry on to become public etc. Remote's last funding round was quite substantial so a lot of publications reported it and proceeded to explain what the company does. I've just created an overview of the company with some of it. I should mention that I based the article on one of their competitor's (Deel (company)) - which is a similar type of company with similar sources. So I'm a bit surprised this one raised concerns. Húsönd 18:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking at the Deel page, I'm seeing some sources that dig in deeper than "this company raised X" which is what I'd prefer to see. Matter of fact, this discusses Remote along with Deel, and is the kind of coverage I'd prefer to see here - it's about the company itself, not how much funding it's raised. (eta) This Forbes article from the Deel page gets into Remote as well. Looks like there is material out there that could work. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've found quite a few additional sources that talk about this company without linking it to the round of funding. This one refers to a refugee program the company has launched and which is being used to assist with Ukrainian refugee employment in Portugal. This one from the Business Insider talking about the company's business model. This one from Carnegie Mellon also describing what the company does and mentioning that it's one of only half a dozen "unicorn" companies with Portuguese founders. Plus these mentions on the FT and BBC. Reuters also writes about it but it's linked to the latest round of funding event. Valid sources just pile up, I find it hard to believe this company fails notability criteria. Húsönd 22:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm definitely leaning towards a keep here if these are all written into the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Worklife, BBC, and FT citations all quote one of Remote's co-founders, so I have doubts about independence. Again, this is a hallmark of churnalism. The same is true for the Carnegie piece, which says Remote is an affiliated company, hence not independent. The Reuters piece looks like WP:MILL to me. I'd like to hear from Husond a clear statement if he does or does not have a conflict of interest. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that you are discounting articles because they quote people involved with the company. That's how journalism works - we interview people, we build articles based around the quotes that they give us. Those all read as articles developed via individual interviews requested by the reporter on specific topics, which to me are entirely suitable. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most "hits" are about remote work in general, nothing beyond press releases for the company. It's only been around since 2019, so there probably isn't much written ABOUT the company yet. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When companies pick a common word as their name it makes it considerably more difficult to find sources specific to them. But they clearly exist - see above. Húsönd 22:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep, per the additional sources discussed above by Tony Fox and Husond. That said, I would be inclined to keep already just on the basis of the TechCrunch and Bloomberg News sources already in the article. This company has undoubtedly received particular attention due to the size of its last funding round, but several of the sources (esp. the TechCrunch) delve at least in passing into what the company does, not just the $ raised, and while undoubtedly their authors have relied heavily on press releases, it seems reasonable to assume they exercised usual journalistic independence in doing so. It's worth noting that due to not-infrequent COI/paid-editor issues, new articles about companies often receive extra scrutiny these days. However, that does not mean we should apply stricter criteria on notability and sourcing than we apply for other articles. (I'd actually be tempted to say Speedy Keep, though I note there is an additional delete !vote, though that predates the additional sources found.) Martinp (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting after a couple of days to reflect on discussion since my comment, and in this case reaffirm my keep !vote. In the Chris Troutman/Tony Fox/Husond thread, I respect that "churnalism" (I like the term) is a challenge, but think in this instance Chris has his churnalism meter setting turned up too high. I find Oaktree's Delete unpersuasive: it's not about "most hits", it's whether there are enough needle-in-haystack genuine reliable sources, and it seems there are; and they go well beyond just press releases (though I recognize that exactly how strong a layer of genuine journalistic independent review on top of releases and interviews is open for debate.) Finally, regarding Chris' request, buried in the thread above, for a "clear statement" regarding whether Husond (as article creator) has a COI, I personally think such requests should routinely be answered. However I also recognize that Chris' nomination for deletion here follows very closely rather snarky comments he made on Husond's talk page regarding return to adminship, and so I also respect if Husond feels entitled to just silently ignore what may feel like hounding. Ultimately, I am happy to evaluate the article here on its merits without reference to it. Martinp (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martinp, I've been quite busy this week so little time to get back to this discussion - but I also intend to update the article with some of the additional sources I found above, so to fully address the concerns on the merits of the initial sources. On the COI clarification demands by the nominator - which I did notice but did not respond - to be honest they do feel to me just as you put it: hounding. Personally I couldn't care less if the creator of a new article has a COI, provided that the article is written in NPOV, the notability of the subject is established, and the content is duly referenced by reliable, independent sources. The nominator and others may think differently of course, and that's absolutely fine, but when it comes to COI disclosure - I believe it should rest strictly within the editor's discretion rather than being forced on them. I didn't agree with such demands for disclosure when I was more active on WP years ago, and after this episode I don't think I'll change my stance on the matter. Húsönd 22:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Husond: Regarding your assertion, " when it comes to COI disclosure - I believe it should rest strictly within the editor's discretion rather than being forced on them" you'll please note that the Terms of Use legally require disclosure: "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. As you say, you've been gone from Wikipedia for some time; these are the sorts of issues a returning editor ought to catch up on. That doesn't square with the fact that the policy changed in June 2014 when you (and I) were actively editing and you would think an admin would know better. Would you now like to revise your prior statements? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, my personal opinion about an editor with COI is a personal one, and it doesn't conflict with our t&c's in any manner. But what I think you don't fully appreciate is that a requirement for an editor to self disclose their COI is not a free pass for other users to demand disclosures. There's so many problems with that, but sadly it's been going on for 15 years and it's obviously a behaviour that is here to stay. Húsönd 21:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, keep on the condition that the new sources be incorporated into the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorporated now. Húsönd 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I still think some of the refs are iffy and more could be done to improve the article overall, but there's enough here to work with moving forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I would expect the article to improve going forward. But if kept, at least a small article will exist - and then when someone tries to find where this company is headquartered (which was my case when I first searched for it) then at least they will find out that kind of basic information. Húsönd 10:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Boy, is this discussion a reeducation for me. Note to self: stick with discussions on the arts, business is way too angry. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Examination of the references:

The references are really really poor and I can't understand why everybody is piling with a keep. Ref 1,4,5,6,7,8 are press-releases. Ref 2,3 are bare mentions and are not independent and Ref 9 is junk. scope_creepTalk 23:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of coming across as bludgeoning (I've commented several times above, and this will be my last comment here), I think the logic here jumps several steps. Indeed, many of these sources would doubtless not exist were coverage not provoked by the recent capital raise, and undoubtedly those sources were informed by, paraphrased, and in fact copied bits of the press release. But they do add various bits of additional information, and we can but assume they did whatever amount of fact checking and editorializing secondary sources do. So it feels excessive to say they "are" press-releases. For instance, Ref 1 goes beyond just noting the capital transaction, it attempts (admittedly superficially) to delve into why, using text not in the PR. While analogies are always hazardous, I keep on thinking that if the article were about an artist, athlete, etc., we would be delighted with the sourcing and would not be having this discussion. Martinp (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think responding like you have is "bludgeoning" - you have demonstrated that you have listened to an opposing point of view and provided your response which isn't a repeat of what you've previously said. But, that said, NCORP guidelines are strict when it comes to references used to establish notability and articles that regurgitate press releases or company announcements specifically fail WP:NCORP (No "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND which meets WP:CORPDEPTH).
  • Note to Admin There was a clear of WP:BLUDGEONing by editor User:Martinp. I removed the comment. scope_creepTalk 06:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider Martinp's comment a case of bludgeoning at all, so it clearly isn't "clear". In fact, I found it a perfectly valid response to your concerns. I would recommend restoring it for the sake of civility. Húsönd 08:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think reverting a (I believe) reasonable response to one's own contribution in a AFD *discussion* should be done only in the most extreme circumstances, so I find scope_creep's reaction bizarre. I trust the closing admin will look at the whole discussion, including my response to scope_creep, which was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Remote_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1082594384 That said, I think I've said all I can say in this discussion without repeating my own words, so as I said in the reverted response, I'm bowing out. Martinp (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Scope creep, while I lean toward agreeing with you that the article fails NCORP, removing User:Martinp's comment is not WP:CIVIL behavior. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to take issue with your opinion of the TechCrunch article, ref 1. Yeah, they're listed as a caution in WP:RSP but with a few notes, and to respond to those: the article is not a blog, it's bylined and written by a TechCrunch staff member; it's specifically noted in the article that they interviewed the CEO, so there is original writing and analysis in the piece rather than it being entirely PR-based. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard-issue churnalist garbage sourced to press releases. And even without the evasiveness above re COI, I'd have figured this was bought and paid for. DoubleCross (‡) 05:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why demands to disclose COI should not be allowed. They plant seeds in people's minds and influence the outcome of discussions just as much as COI itself influences the outcome of an article. And then they create a fertile ground for this type of nonsense by users with crystal balls and apparently access to my bank account. Húsönd 10:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Comment This dude here who is a UPE and the other dude who replied earlier, are trying to WP:BLUDGEON the whole Afd. I'm half-minded to take them to both to AN. scope_creepTalk 13:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not half-stopping you. Húsönd 13:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:SIGCOV. A close analysis of the sources demonstrate churnalism at its baldest. I also note that UPE is against the TOU, so why is that guy still here. I suggests the closing admin ignore the hocus-pocus going on above and focus on the arguments for deleting this article, which are that sources have been found mentioning the company and that it does not matter the quality of that coverage. SN54129 19:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "why is that guy still here" - dunno, perhaps because in your close analysis you decided that the allegations by the nominator which later became formal accusations should now be upgraded to a verdict & punishment. Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Húsönd 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy who's taken over a decade to make ~259 edits is telling people how it works? Good luck with that. SN54129 23:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails SIGCOV. Even though this is a corporation, WP:ROUTINE has application here. The sources already applied and (IMHO) correctly analyzed by User:Scope creep demonstrate this company exists, having funding and personnel. Nothing notable about that. No assertion of notability at all, that I can see, either on the page or in sources. If User:Husond is an UPE, they at least have made no effort to conceal it. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have to make any effort whatsoever to conceal whatsoever. This is beyond farcical. Húsönd 21:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per scope creep and sn54129. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not able to figure out why this company is noteable today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.115.5.118 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Rather than deleting if it fails notability I think that draftifying it would be the way to go to allow it to mature as an article. Gusfriend (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gusfriend: yo, it can't be draftified, that's been done once already. Best to delete. SN54129 13:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have put Martinp's comment back in, at his request. scope_creepTalk 07:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of reliable, secondary sources providing details for this company. Arguing that WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are not met here is ridiculous. It could perhaps be argued that one source like Reuters, Bloomberg or the Financial Times could gullibly follow a press release without fact-checking, but to assume all of these have reported incredible information is rejecting WP:RS/PS consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This entire discussion, and the related discussions on other noticeboards, seems to derive from a logical fallacy. The argument seems to be “the writer has a conflict of interest and/or is being paid, therefore the article is terrible and must be deleted.” There are two issues here. First, the CoI/UPE is an allegation without supporting evidence, but one that most other commenters have taken as true and based their arguments for deletion around. The problem is that the CoI/UPE allegation is just that — and allegation. No rational decisions can be made using that as a basis. Secondly, even if this was CoI/UPE, that in itself is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps it should be, and people could propose that elsewhere. But currently it isn’t, so the !votes above that start from the basis that this should be deleted for CoI/UPE and then add some very professional-looking reasoning based on sources being not good enough because the article is a CoI/UPE are specious. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name one editor here who's primary argument is that the argument needs to be deleted because of CoI/UPE? Because from what I see, most delete !votes don't even mention CoI/UPE and those that do only mention it as an afterthought at the end. Discussions on other noticeboards are unlikely to be considered by any closed of this AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, it shouldn't be in the opening statement and it shouldn't be an afterthought - it is totally unrelated to the criteria on notability and significant coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Even accepting that, it seems to me making false accusations against other editors as Trey Maturin seems to have done is more severe. More significantly no one is required to participate at an AfD though and assessing an AfD properly generally takes time. I don't see why editors aren't allowed to make decisions on whether they're going to spend time on such things based at least partly on how severe the problem is. If it's just one of those run of the mill possibly non notable company articles that we have probably tens of thousands of maybe just leave it, since you can't be bothered. If it's one of the much more severe cases where the article may have been created by someone with a CoI then you're more willing to spend time to do the assessment.

    I'd note someone having a CoI also changes the dynamic of source and notability assessment. If an article is at AfD and the creator is still defending it, then under normal circumstances we have one editor saying it meets our criteria and the sources are there, one editor who does not. If the editor has a CoI then this no longer applies. We do not trust editors with a CoI to be objective and fair in the assessment, one of the reasons we strongly discourage even if we don't forbid editors with a CoI from editing articles directly let alone creating them. Therefore in a CoI situation, at the outset we only have on editor who feels it doesn't meet our sourcing and notability requirements. Editors assessing the comments from the creator (or whoever it is with a CoI) are likewise likely to give added scrutiny to what they say and more carefully check what they're pointing to and of course the closer will generally consider it too.

    Note that I'm commenting on a case where an editor has a proven probably self admitted CoI. This is not the case here but your comment makes no such distinction instead suggesting it's never acceptable to comment on a CoI in an AfD.

    The question of whether you should comment on a CoI when it's unproven and some may feel the evidence isn't even that strong is more complicated and not something I wish to comment on except to briefly emphasise how complicated it. One thing I haven't yet mentioned is it's possible that an editor may let the fact they know or think the other editor has a CoI unfairly affect their assessment i.e. they'd be more negative to a source everything else being equal. While such concerns don't seem to be enough in the case of a proven CoI to prevent it being mentioned, they add to the concerns where it's unproven since other editors may not have such thoughts were it never mentioned & yet it's unproven. On the flip side, the OP was obviously thinking that, and it sounds to me at least one editor probably would have thought the same thing with no one having mentioned anything, so such concerns already arise. By preventing these editors from mentioning it, you're preventing other editors and the closer for that matter, from considering that this editor's views may have been affected by their belief there's probably a CoI.

    Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally feel that if an editor is incorporating the possibility of a COI into their thinking, they are far more likely to view the same information in a negative light. It's the classic positive (or in this case negative) confirmation bias. People looking for a way to discount an article they think might be paid are more likely to filter out information that defies such a conclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article already has a volume of RS that some embryonic startup articles can only dream of ... which is not really surprising given the $3bn valuation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless the fact that an editor has a proven CoI seems a far greater reason to discount their assessment. I'd note again, other than my last paragraph we're not discussing "the possibility of a COI" we're discussing a proven COI. Your earlier comment makes no such distinction instead claiming it's not acceptable to ever comment on a CoI in an AfD since it's irrelevant to the source and notability assessment implying this is the case even where the editor has a self-admitted CoI. And again even in unproven case, if you fear this then you also have to consider it's already happening. By disallowing editors from saying it, you and the closure cannot incorporated such thinking into their assessment. As I also mentioned, this benefit does need to be counterbalanced with the risk that editors will start thinking it who weren't doing so earlier and I make no comment on which is the great benefit. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B. I was earlier briefly correct/improve my original comment changing from "even that strong is more complicated and not something I wish to comment on except to" to "even that strong as is the case here is not something I wish to comment on, there have already been ample discussions on this all over, except to" and "i.e." to "e.g." and finally (well one more too unimportant) adding "being equal or say it doesn't mean NCORP when they would have said something different if there were no CoI" but was hit by an EC. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think even a confirmed COI case should result in the same sources being reflected on differently. While it should draw additional scrutiny to the article as a whole, the actual process of decision-making regarding sourcing should be unaffected. BUT, in cases such as this, where a COI is not confirmed, but just an aspersion, it is quite problematic. As @Rlink2 notes, there are several plausible reasons why a longstanding editor might come back to put up an article on a company, not least of them, simply from reading the news. And the problem with positive confirmation bias is that it is a subconscious phenomenon, which means, regardless of their intentions, people prepped to discount contrary information often unwittingly tend to do so. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My view on COI is very much in line with Iskandar/Trey Maturin's. Nobody in this discussion based their delete position solely on the COI/UPE allegations, but most mentioned them so it's difficult to tell how much influence they played when the editors assessed the article on its own merits. Or how many editors were drawn to this discussion by the allegations and happened to fall on the deletionist part of the spectrum. So it's clear that this discussion would've had a very different trajectory if the nominator hadn't planted the seed of doubt right at the beginning, and doubled down with a direct request to disclose COI when the discussion was leaning towards Keep. The outcome would probably have been different, and the toxicity levels would certainly have been very different.
    I should add that the only editor on the delete side who made a thorough assessment of the sources (Scope creep) was the same editor who gratuitously accused me of being paid to create the article. I can't help but take issue with the editor's capacity for making balanced judgments - extended to the editors who were too happy to side with him. Húsönd 08:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on what I see in the article, this fails NCORP. There are some good RS there (e.g. BBC, FT), but they only mention the subject in passing, in order to explain who the founder is when they are using a quote they got from him; the articles are essentially about different subjects. The sources which are about the company seem to be just routine coverage of capital being raised (of the type described as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I'll add that even if the sourcing were up to scratch, I'd be tempted to !vote delete per WP:TNT: the article is partly written in impenetrable marketing jargon (a global provider of payroll solutions - what does that mean?), and it's generally very promotional in tone. Girth Summit (blether) 14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been much distraction in this AfD, but the gist IMO is that this fails NCORP, the best sources that exist are those about round III funding, and I agree with User:Girth Summit that this amounts to trivial coverage. Delete Jacona (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per above. RS's only mention company in passing, and non notable. They exist, and that's basically it. Fails NCORP and GNG. Anyone who is accusing Husond of violating WP:UPE and WP:COI without substantial evidence besides "they edited x article" are just blatantly attacking Husond. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that anyone has proposed a merge yet - if you think this is a viable option, you should probably indicate a target page to merge it into. Girth Summit (blether) 18:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability (mostly WP:SERIESA-type references), topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:50, 20 April 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Remote_(company)

Leave a Reply