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. Sandstein 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I have provided references to all the content in the page, could you let me know what to edit(change) in the page to prevent deletion. Thank You — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
NitinBnB (
talk •
contribs)
Delete In addition to being not notable, the article is highly promotional, as can be sen from the origin story, typical of what PR people write for their clients. Even more important, Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on
Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also
WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DGG (
talk •
contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This a small and relatively new business, and the content is promotional in tone. The referencing is repetitive and based on press releases. Fails
WP:NCORP.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete All refs are derived from press releases that the company has received start-up funding.
David notMD (
talk) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - as others have mentioned, reads in a promotional way, not a significant company
Eyebeller (
talk) 17:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The founder is my friend and it was my idea to start a Wikipedia page as a gift for starting a successful business.I am open to suggestions and ready to change anything in the page to ensure the page doesnt get deleted. Please do let me know what to do to avoid deletion.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
NitinBnB (
talk •
contribs)
Delete. I agree with Cullen's comments about the article. I think the kind of sources used is problematic, as they are bound to publish about this kind of company anyway.
Mathias (
talk) 00:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the info, I read the COI page. I understand there is a conflict of interest, but I have written the page stating only facts from the references provided. I assure you that the sources mentioned are not paid publishing and are pure facts. I had written the page referring another Wikipedia page "Log9 materials" which use the same type of reference materials, so I assumed the sources provided will be accepted. Please feel free to edit the page{{request edit}}. I am new here and am trying to contribute without disrupting any Wikipedia guidelines.
NitinBnB (
talk) 05:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment:"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument.
Log 9 Materials should be nominated for deletion, as much of the content is about it having received start-up funding.
David notMD (
talk) 09:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, insufficient sources for this small company.--
Hippeus (
talk) 11:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Blatant promotional article with sources entirely based on funding annoucements (paid PR).
Faizal batliwala (
talk) 13:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - falling way short of
WP:NCORP; could well be deleted per
WP:SNOWSpiderone 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Please consider not deleting the page, I had referred pages like "Log9 materials" and "HouseJoy", these pages were published long before "Brick&Bolt" and are not deleted. I am confused why Brick&Bolt is up for deletion where as those pages have the same sources, same type of article structure and are not considered for deletion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
NitinBnB (
talk •
contribs) 04:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Please take a look at
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for more specific details, but basically this discussion is an assessment of this article's suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia on its own merits. It's quite possible that those other articles you mentioned shouldn't exist or should've never been created, but that's another discussion for a different time. So, if you feel this article should be kept, you should clarify why in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; not in terms of other articles. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Small private software development company of 66 individuals. Entirely non-notable. Fails
WP:NCORP on my levels. scope_creepTalk 19:38, 20 November 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.