Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbyne (company)


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Carbyne (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article feels like an advertisement and the company does not seem to meet notability guidelines. A few articles exist but are mainly related to funding. TheForgottenKing (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose So it needs expansion - like most Wikipedia articles. Cannot understand rationale for deletion. Plenty of sources, plenty of potential.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes the WP:GNG with relative ease. The idea that articles discussing the funding of a company do not contribute to notability is not rooted in policy. I have seen similar attempts of discounting sourcing before. It's part of a nomination avalanche, moving time efforts away from the article space. gidonb (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, you've mentioned "policy" and referenced GNG which isn't policy but a guideline. So if you accept guidelines then WP:SNG will tell you that for organizations, WP:NCORP is the appropriate one. Which in turn has the WP:ORGIND section with the definition for "Independent Content". So, while you're correct that articles *discussing" the funding should be considered, articles that merely/solely repeat/regurgitate announcements on funding are not OK. So with all that in mind, which references are you looking at where the funding is being "discussed" and not repeated/regurgitated?  HighKing++ 12:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * delete Company of unclear function and notability. I failed to find any independent non-promotional in-depth coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:34, 11 January 2022 (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.