Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbase (company)

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. Tone 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superbase (company)

[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)

NN firm which does not meet WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article contains sources that are primary, unreliable and not independent of the subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umakan Bhalerao - any suggestions you can offer on making this more suitable per your ojbections? I see you have several pages on schools, which are not quite "encyclopedia worthy" but they are listed. Hoping to find a way to keep this page alive at least for more than the 7 days in order to flesh out additional citation support. Any feedback is appreciated. K67 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

Keep. The degree of notability is yet to be determined, but it would be reasonable to allow the community sufficient time to improve the article. The closer nominated for deletion in a drive-by within hours of the article being published. Article clearly doesn't appear to be an attempt to "appear more favorably." WP:COMPANIES--EngbotUK (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No consensus on delete. 173.54.190.182 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided are either non-independent or PR, neither of which help with WP:GNG. My own search brought up more PR sources but nothing that would demonstrate meeting WP:NCORP. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've blocked EngbotUK as WP:NOTHERE. Ignoring them and the IP, there's not much here. I'm not sure what to make of Cewbot. Do we really have bots telling admins how to do their jobs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A new user's first article, describing a design company and the work that it does. The affiliations of the company and its founder do not count towards WP:NCORP, nor does its appearance in a list of design agencies in their city. The lists produced by the DesignRush agency are wider in scope, but there is a lack of evidence that these have independent inclusion criteria or that these listings are inherently notable. Searches find more agency listings but nothing to demonstrate achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an obvious advertisement, and the linked sources are also advertisement (just like that, currently ref #2). Notability is doubtful. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 8 September 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.