Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bynder (3rd nomination)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bynder
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Articles on this firm have been deleted twice before. The present instance was drafted by a new editor and moved into mainspace as their 13th edit. Many of the sources appear to have been available to the 2017 deletion discussion. This instance also has content relating to subsequent acquisitions, the opening of a new office, a customer service award and a commissioned piece of market research, none of which seem to go beyond routine coverage and demonstrate that the company now meets WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions: ,
 * Logs:,  ,  ,

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Don't know what did the old version that was deleted three years ago contain, but the present version of the article contain enough independent sources to pass it GNG. - Ivan hersee (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as none contain Independent Content and fail WP:ORGIND. They're either based on company announcements or are mentions-in-passing or are primary sources. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the sourcing requirements are commonly misunderstood by inexperienced users and routinely disregarded by marketing and public relations editors. On Wikipedia, reliable means very different things. Sometimes primary sources and those closely related to the subject are more reliable and useful for augmenting the details of something already discussed in a secondary source, but for the purpose of establishing that the subject company is notable, totally independent, significant coverage in the general interest (hence "general" notability) publication of wide circulation is critical. If you look in discipline specific academic books or highly specific independent journals, you'll often find coverage in significant depth, but those things are focused on a narrow interest specific to the target audience of the specialized publications. They're great for facts, but never for notability support. Based on current sourcing, I recommend deletion. Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2020 (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.