Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound Fighter Systems

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. In the absence of any sources being presented, assertions that it's old so there must be sources do not pass muster. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Fighter Systems

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources in the article are advertorials, and I am unable to find any additional sourcing which would meet the threshold of notability. Jack Frost (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. all the references are advertorials. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost 50 years old, founded in 1973 and is considered one of the main noise reduction companies. Partnered with major utility and energy companies in the US. There are many good sources too, which can later be added. Lopnursands (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lopnursands, I'm sure you won't mind listing a few of those "...many good sources..."? --Jack Frost (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above! An old organization with reliable coverage present. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
INeedToFlyForever, where, may I ask, is this "reliable coverage"? --Jack Frost (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, Delete -- I don't see any reliable coverage, Google search offers only brief mentions and company's official sites. The age of a company does not necessarily make it notable.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Melaleuca alternifolia, you !vote says Keep but your reasoning points to Delete. Can you check again? HighKing 20:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! It is a Delete.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria.

Jerusalem Post reference has been "written" by "DN Media Network" which specialised in paid promotion. Its churnalism. Fails WP:ORGIND.
EconoTimes reference doesn't even have a credited author and has a disclaimer from the company at the bottom. More churnalism, this is also paid promotion.
Yahoo article is written by "Brand Voice" and also has a disclaimer at the bottom. Yup, it is also naked paid promotion (slips up with "*our* LSE sound-absorbtive panels") and yet more churnalism.
TMCnet reference is also promotion and churnalism. TMC allows you to submit your own articles - hence the "author" is "Special Guest"

I have been unable to find any articles with any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with HighKing's source analysis: there's nothing here that meets the deliberately strict WP:NCORP standards. All the cited coverage is promotional, and I can find nothing that would be sufficiently independent and substantial to contribute toward notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2021 (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.