Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beacon (supply chain)


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Beacon (supply chain)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional and non-notable The lead para is an advertisement of why to use thef irm. The refs are  mere notices of appointments or funding, or PR.  DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject is non notable and the few sources I've found are PR fluffs. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: The first paragraph merely sets out the market proposition of this relatively new firm, with start-up coverage as references. Beyond that, the information on the founders' previous jobs and funding sources is trivial coverage according to WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches are not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: The first 3 references in the reference list mean that the company meets all the criteria set out in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The previous delete requests are linking to or mentioning Wikipedia notability criteria, but not actually applying them.
 * 1. Significant coverage: All 3 references are exclusively about the company (company name is in the title of all 3).
 * 2. Multiple: The references are from 3 completely different websites/organizations.
 * 3. Independent: All 3 of these references are independent news organizations which don't just work for the company.
 * 4. Reliable: The first reference is The Times, which is a national newspaper in the UK, and indeed newspapers such as the New York Times and Times of India are named after it. References 2 & 3 are reliable logistics news websites.
 * 5. Secondary: If you read the sources (particularly the first one) you can see that the authors perform "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". GlobalOptimum (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The second one is explicitly a reprint of the first. None of these meets WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 05:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - generic startup spam, likely paid-for, so I am blocking the author (GlobalOptimum). MER-C 05:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The company does not appear notable; being started by former executives from a notable company does not by itself lead to encyclopedic notability. The sources are run-of-the-mill churnalism, with the article simply regurgitating the PR-style material contained therein. WP:CORPDEPTH does not seem to be met. -- Kinu t/c 18:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.