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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Riskline

Riskline (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable company, the citation that is about it is from blogs, and also from contributors such as on Forbes which can be paid for. James Richards 01:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't agree with your point about the blogs, most of the sources are from reputable news outlets, including business insider. Certainly has enough press coverage to meet notability guidelines TheWarOfArt ( talk) 02:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

What is there to disagree with? Blogs are generally not view as Reliable Sources - see here.

It was also earlier reviewed and included within the scope of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Denmark TheWarOfArt ( talk) 14:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any further references that are any better. Most references fail to include any "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND or are mentions-in-passing and therefore have no in-depth information on the company and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep many of the sources are simply not blogs (Stuff, Business Insider, Forbes) and for reasons mentioned above TheWarOfArt ( talk) 20:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • TheWarOfArt, we know the company exists and has a marketing presence but the mere existence of reference does not denote notability. Also, there's a difference between references to support the existence of a company and facts about the company which essentially is WP:RS. There are difference standards for establishing notability and for companies/organizations, the guidelines are WP:NCORP. I'll provide a breakdown of specifically why the references fail Wikipedia's policies/guidelines for establishing notability below. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Analysis of sources shows that none meet the criteria for establishing notability. In fact, not even close. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This from Business Insider] is an article on whether it is safe to travel to Mexico and as part of the article they ask various experts their opinion. The CEO and Operations Manger of the company provides quotations for the article. There is no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND and no in-depth information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Thie from TravelDailyNews is entirely based on an interview with the Director of Operations and contains "Riskline's 10 top travel risks for 2020" which is published by the company themselves. The exact same details/article is also published in other publications such as Tourism Sri Lanka, the Northstar Meetings Group and G4 Risk Solutions and has been mentioned in a lot of other publications too such as the Business Travel Magazine. There is no Independent Content nor any in-depth information on the company. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Sunrise is a company announcement from Sunrise who won a contract to build their new branding. There's also a case study of the project. Sunrise are therefore *not* unaffiliated with the company, reference fails WP:ORGIND
  • This from Travolution is based on a company announcement and release of new city-level safety maps. The article relies entirely on information provided by the company and has no Independent Content. Similar articles based on the same announcement such as CIR Magazine and Insurance Edge. Since none contain Independent Content, they all fail WP:ORGIND.
  • This from ITIJ is based on a series of report released by the company entitled "The Female Traveller Safety Reports" and relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their officers. It has no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH
  • This from Stuff is an article on Thai anti-government protesters activities in Bangkok. It includes one single quotation from a political risk analyst working for the company. It is a mere mention-in-passing and is not significant coverage, reference fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
  • This "reference" from MySafeTravel is for a mobile app that provides safety information from their partner company, the subject of this AfD. There is no information whatsoever on the company nor is it significant coverage. Reference fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
  • The Forbes reference is from the part of the site that is not considered to be under editorial control nor reliable, fails WP:RS. Even leaving that aside, there is no in-depth information provided on the company and the relevant parts rely entirely on quotations provided by an officer of the company, failing WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH
  • This from Northstar Meetings Group is covered above, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH

• Delete as non-notable, all the apparent refs contributing nothing towards notability as explained above, despite the article author's protestations. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate everyone's points. However, this reads to me as deletionism when perhaps {More citations needed} or {Refimprove|date=April 2020} would be a better choice and allow for future community improvement. In this vein, I have also added additional sourcing. TheWarOfArt ( talk) 19:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I would agree with the argument that the sources provided/listed above (Stuff, Business Insider, Forbes) are reputable sources and being listed in those places is notable due to their outreach and brand recognition. -- XtasyofGold ( talk) 20:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The problem with the Forbes article is that it is not written by a staff member of Forbes but instead by a contributor of Forbes. -- James Richards ( talk) 04:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I would add that the argument are reputable sources and being listed in those places is notable due to their outreach and brand recognition is the very argument that WP:NCORP makes sure is not valid. Companies have PR teams and marketing teams - they know that "those places" provide their company with "outreach and brand recognition" and that is why they pay to have "articles" written about them. That is why we look at the *content* of the article and look for "Independent Content" (which is defined in WP:ORGIND). If you believe any of the sources contain "Independent Content", please explain here. HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The sources often fail SigCov, sometimes fail reliable and very often fail to be independent. Overall, I don't think it could pass GNG, and certainly no the higher NCORP standards. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:08, 21 April 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.