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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Global Data Intelligence Limited

Global Data Intelligence Limited (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies: sources are either passing mentions, press releases, unreliable sources or indiscriminate database profiles. (PROD contested by creator) – Tera tix ₵ 10:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Tera tix ₵ 10:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Tera tix ₵ 10:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Tera tix ₵ 10:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Tera Thank you for your effort. I consider that Global Data Intelligence Limited article should not be deleted, because as I mentioned on Talk:Global_Data_Intelligence_Limited&action Talk:Global_Data_Intelligence_Limited I had a deep analysis related to b2b database providers, being inspired by businesses as LeadGenius, InsideView, ZoomInfo and others big similar companies, trying to write a unique content and find valuable reference links. Moreover, I found many external sources but I do not know which are valuable for Wikipedia articles. I consider, that companies which work with global customers like Microsoft, CISCO, DHL and many more, need to have Wikipedia page, to avoid misunderstanding between companies and clients perception. I agree with Tera related to unreliable sources, it's my mistake, maybe I did not search enough for them. I still hope that this page will not be deleted and count on your help.

Thank you all for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymemore ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• You mentioned you found "many external sources" but you don't know which ones are useful for articles. Have you found any sources that are not currently cited in the article? – Tera tix ₵ 12:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Yes, but this is a huge list, when I search like their trading name Global Database, I find many referral links, but I do not know which are a good one. I gave the name Global Data Intelligence Limited because this is a legal name, thinking that this is more correct. How do you think, Tera? Because on google exist too many sources concerning Global Database search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymemore ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as currently written. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. @ Trymemore: You say that you have many sources, I would suggest reading WP:RS and trying to identify sources of in-depth coverage (more than a few sentences) from reliable sources (such as news organizations with reputation for accuracy). shoy ( reactions) 14:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: Also see WP:Teahouse#Follow-up to Review my first created business page. – 84.46.52.26 ( talk) 02:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  Meanwhile archived, how about closing this as "move back to draft", and let Trymemore sort their references for some time? @ Trymemore: There's a timeout for drafts if nothing happens, IIRC after six months a draft with no edits/submission can be deleted. – 84.46.53.12 ( talk) 14:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  I would like to see at least one good reference before !voting to draftify. – Tera tix ₵ 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  Yes, me too. The BuzzFeed source ( yellow on RS/P) isn't obviously bad, D&B Hoovers exists, and the article lists Dun & Bradstreet as competitor. – 84.46.53.12 ( talk) 00:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  The Buzzfeed source is unusable – it's written by a "community contributor" i.e. no editorial oversight. I'm not sure what you mean by "D&B Hoovers exists", or the relevance of listing Dun & Bradstreet as a competitor. – Tera tix ₵ 02:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  The content isn't obviously bogus, Buzzfeed D&B Hoovers is on topic and matches Dun & Bradstreet on the article discussed here. BTW, your opinion about this source needs a red (not only yellow) on RS/P, I'm too lazy to suggest that on the RS/P talk page, I'm hunting TMZ and some others, not including Buzzfeed so far. – 84.46.52.129 ( talk) 19:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  Buzzfeed's editorial content might merit a yellow (I've never encountered it) but content contributed by a random person on the Internet, not vetted by editors, simply can't be used in an article. The existence of articles on a similar company doesn't imply all companies of type are notable. – Tera tix ₵ 23:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  OT, there's a green BuzzFeed News below WP:RS/P#BuzzFeed. – 84.46.52.129 ( talk) 07:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  This means that you can move to draft until will not find more reliable sources?

• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. None of the sources in the article are usable. They're either not WP:RS, or directory listings, or just passing mentions in articles about other topics. Possibly WP:G11 worthy. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Appears written as advertising. The possible reason why reliable independent sources haven't been found is that there doesn't appear to be any and I went through two pages on a search. @ Trymemore: Thanks for the contributions but on this one I don't see that there is anything. If it was drafted I don't think sources could be found to provide a HEY. Otr500 ( talk) 20:16, 2 May 2019 (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.