Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightpearl


 * 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  06:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Brightpearl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete A run-of-the-mill technology company with no indications of notability in their own right. This article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Yet another private company that is using Wikipedia as an extension of a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: The coverage in the BBC, Telegraph, and FT is sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. I think the TechCrunch source meets WP:NCORP as well, as well as this article: . -Mparrault (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Nope, none of those sources meets the criteria for establishing notability. WP:NCORP clearly sets out the criteria. The BBC podcast was an overview of the British computing industry and at about 21:00 interviews Chris Tanner the CEO at the time. This fails WP:ORGIND. The Telegraph article is an interview with a member of their board and CEO and therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, same as the FT article. The Techcrunch article is based on a company announcement, also fails WP:ORGIND. Your link to the Business Insider article similarly is based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 19:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Telegraph source is clear, and techcrunch is a marginal source. As I AGF that the sources I can't properly access (I could access the beeb - if someone can suggest a relevant time that would be helpful) are suitable, then these are some excellent sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Response I've suggested the time for the BBC podcast above but since it is an interview with the CEO (with no intellectually independent views/opinions/analysis) it fails WP:ORGIND. The Telegraph source is likewise devoid of intellectually independent content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies is documented at WP:NCORP and requires sources that do not rely on quotations/interviews such as these.  HighKing++ 19:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interviews with company personnel are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. In the absence of any other reliable independent sources, this should not be retained. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete without prejudice. Only reason for suggestion is WP:TOOSOON. There are a couple of sources solidly supporting notability, i.e. FT and Telegraph, but not much more. Discarding the cruft we have little else. But a Keep decision in this case would not be outrageous. -The Gnome (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure if you realise that articles that rely extensively on interviews/quotations from connected sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 17:05, 17 June 2018 (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.