Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellulant


 * 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Cellulant

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP Megan B....   It’s all coming to me till the end of time  15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kenya.  Megan B....   It’s all coming to me till the end of time  15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. information accurate 105.163.2.120 (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I cannot find enough in-depth coverage to show this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel 5969  TT me 16:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. My own research into the subject doesn’t find any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NORG, WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NORG. Since they don’t, however, the strongest case to made here is the one for deletion. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2023 (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.