Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Hana

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Hana

[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)

Borderline G11 promotional article for a Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search showed me nothing concrete, a review of the sources used in the article are mostly not independent of the organization as they are primary sources & are all mostly unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In terms of WP:NCORP, this seems to be an otherwise run-of-the-mill 20-person company which has been around for a few years, and received some coverage for its funding and marketing efforts. But otherwise nothing substantive. In terms of WP:GNG, a search of the Irish newspapers of record returns the type of coverage we might expect for a company of this type. A search in the Irish Independent stable of papers, for example, returns just 4 results. Mostly trivial/passing mentions and very very recent news on receiving a few million in funding. A similar search of the Irish Times returns 10 just results. All also either trivial/passing mentions, coverage of today's funding announcement, and other "marketing material/press release republished as article" style churnalism. Nothing substantive. In terms of WP:PAID and WP:PROMO, the pattern of editing preceding the article's creation is similar to that often associated with paid/promotional editing. Guliolopez (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacking in-depth significant coverage per nom and Guliolopez. ww2censor (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Guliolopez, doesn't pass NCORP or GNG. I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the company, aside from the typical churnalism, announcements, etc, and some more in-depth articles about the founder ([1], [2]) but not about the company. I also agree that the author's editing pattern is suspicious. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2020 (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.