Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KarloCompare

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KarloCompare

[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)

Seems to be a run of the mill company that does not satisfy NCORP. Coverage is limited to routine funding announcements, brief mentions and press releases. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few reliable sources about the company: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. It's also mentioned here. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey Superastig, it has been mentioned once before that I know of. You have a mistaken idea of the AfD Process. You say My vote stands. I won't reply any further - first, it isn't a vote count and second, if you decide not to respond to editors pointing out why your reasoning is flawed and you don't respond, a closing admin will generally reach an understanding that you concede the points raised and discount your !vote. HighKing 12:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - HighKing, First. I've been participating in AfDs before and, for Christ's sake, I really know that this is not a vote count. When I said my vote stands, my reasoning stands as well and not the vote itself. Second. I don't mind if the weight of my reason to keep or delete a certain article is not as heavy or light than the others. All that matters is that I've said my viewpoints. If other people vote to delete it for a reason, then be it. If they voted to keep it for a reason, then be it. I respect their viewpoints. And mine should be respected as well. Third. Anyone has the option to respond or not. If he chooses to respond, then fine. But, if he chooses not to respond, then be it. But whether I respond or not, my viewpoints will stand. Therefore, no matter how many times you argue with me, I never misunderstood the idea of any AfD Process. I rest my case. I really do. And I won't reply from hereon as this is not worth arguing. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheImaCow (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The sources provided above are laughably bad, mostly unreliable and even so, they are barely even a passing mention. The current article is straight up spam and I can find nothing to indicate that this is actually notable. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found by Superastig don’t look like in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, the criteria for references to establish notability is not just whether the publications is a "reliable source". There are strict guidelines on what is required which can be summarized as follows. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the reference meet the criteria. Superastig above mentions 4 references. This from TechJuice is based on an announcement from a venture capital fund that they'd invested in the company, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This from Daily Times is a brief mention, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This second from TechJuice is a recap of investments in companies in Pakistan and contains a paragraph on the company. The paragraph is a standard company description used in PR. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, this from Pakistan Today is an article on "What entrepreneurs should do to get their startups financed" and contains a long interview with executives from "TLP e-Ventures" who invested in the company. The topic company is very briefly mentioned, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing 12:54, 2 July 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.