Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Business

Aspire (Energy)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This advertorial article on an energy drink does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations/businesses WP:NCORP, lacking WP:CORPDEPTH the citations are either primary sources, blogs, or press-release type PR. The product itself does not meet WP:GNG. I think it's PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Health and fitness, and Business. Netherzone (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VLAB

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. Organization appears to be defunct; the references are either sponsored or trivial mentions. Google search returns dozens of other "virtual lab" or "venture lab" results, but nothing about this one other than its social media. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gelato

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a gelato brand no longer in existence, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. A before search finds social media but not much else. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and California. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as it seems like not many web sources were covering it. However, a quick glance on Google Newspapers reveal that newspapers across the country seemed to have been covering it at some point. However, I'm not sure those could fulfill the general notability guideline. Tavantius (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavantius, Are you looking at the Google hits for the company in Beverly Hills, California or the one in Ireland? I too saw in a BEFORE search some hits for the Ireland Al Gelato, however this article is on the company that used to exist in Beverly Hills/Los Angeles, California. Either way because it's a business, it would need CORPDEPTH coverage to meet WP:NCORP not just GNG. Netherzone (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Challenge (competition)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a business competition, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for business competitions. The main notability claim on offer here is that this existed, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- making this notable enough for a Wikipedia article would be a matter of showing that it passed WP:GNG on its sourceability, not merely of stating its existence. But the only source here is the self-published website of the thing itself, rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about it, and a Google search didn't find much else.
I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with much better access to archived British media coverage from 15-20 years ago than I've got can find the sourcing needed to salvage it, but it can't just be kept in perpetuity without sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Events, Environment, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can’t find any third party coverage, the competition itself seems to have fizzled out in 2008/9, and there doesn’t seem to be any sources talking about it as having happened at any point after it stopped. Can’t seem to turn up further coverage on the winners either, so THEY don’t seem to be notable either… Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation and employee engagement

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article functions mostly as a cross between a lower quality version of Employee motivation and a dump of summaries of studies. I don't see how having the page is useful when Employee motivation and Work motivation both exist. Hihyphilia (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uplers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While Ulpers is by no means a small business, I believe they fail to meet the WP:ORG notability criteria due to a lack of sizeable media coverage, as well as most of the article's refs being links to blog posts. Ulpers may perform well, but in the grand scheme of things, I cannot see a valid reason to call them notable by Wiki standards. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and India. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : No significant coverage from independent reliable source.--Gabriel (……?) 12:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a recruitment platform, sourced largely to announcements of partnerships, products and personnel, none of which exceeds WP:CORPTRIV. Similar for the founder's Indian Achievers Forum award which appears non-notable (though I am intrigued by the idea of "a dire passion for adopting new market trends"). A company going about its business but I am not seeing evidence that it has attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Culture Foundation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there's some coverage in connection with their powering of AO3, it's not ORG level and I don't see where it merits mention at Archive of Our Own since the one source isn't great. Opted against PROD due to its tenure, but this is a borderline A7 with no sourcing found to improve it. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Found lots of coverage via ProQuest (New Scientist, The Village Voice, New York Times, etc.). Started adding to the article which was in poor shape, was definitely worth fixing, and could still use further improvement. @Star Mississippi: Let me know if that's enough for now but anyway ProQuest is the place to look. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statrys

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTIFY does not allow redraftiification without formal consensus, so here we are. WP:ADMASQ, this is a WP:ROTM business, failing WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Hong Kong, and France. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of meeting WP:NCORP, all the coverage is trivial. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive overtime

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and is only sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources, without any secondary sourcing whatsoever. What's left is original research. It's impossible to even WP:ATD because there is nothing to merge at all, making it surprising how it lasted for so long. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Economics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Overtime. The article as it stands now is a lot of unverified text that is essentially unsourced (though I did just add a citation after rewriting the lede). The actual topic discussed is very narrow – it's about how payroll accountants calculate retroactive overtime in the United States – and doesn't merit a standalone article, especially given the lack of sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatoora Platform

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic in question lacks sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. It does not meet the necessary criteria for independently significant under Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Either the article should be deleted or merge with with the relevant parent article, Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and Saudi Arabia. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the proposal to delete the Fatoora Platform page, as it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under both WP:GNG and subject-specific notability.

1. Independent Sources: The platform has been covered by reliable, independent sources such as PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, and Saudi Gazette, which provide significant analysis on its implementation and role in tax compliance within Saudi Arabia. These sources establish the platform's notability as they are independent, non-promotional, and provide in-depth coverage.

2. Impact: Fatoora is integral to Saudi Vision 2030, a major national reform program, and plays a critical role in digital transformation and tax regulation in the country. It impacts millions of businesses and has been recognized as a significant development in Saudi Arabia’s economic modernization.

3. Notability Compliance: The article is well-supported by both primary and independent sources, fulfilling the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. The platform's wide-reaching impact, both locally and internationally, demonstrates its significance.

For these reasons, I believe the article should be retained. Njoy deep (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Economic Alliance

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This group received some coverage when it first launched in 2018, but that's mainly a function of having a good publicist. Since 2018, they've received very little in-depth coverage. There's some in-depth coverage of its leadership, but most articles I could find only mention BEA in passing. An editor removed my PROD on this article because they found a "recent NYT article that refers to organization's recent activity," which they said "addresses the issue" I had. There's only one problem: the NYT article in question is about Wes Moore, and there is exactly 1 sentence about BEA. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:N test of WP:SUSTAINED with a few stories upon launch and no WP:SIGCOV since. Subsequent coverage is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. It should go without saying that this organization cannot inherit notability from its members. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PensionBee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlikely to meet NCORP; no reliable sources The editing spirit (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and this seem like independent, significant and reliable sources and there's even more coverage in the news search example. Article needs improvement. Orange sticker (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]