Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cielo WiGle (2nd 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. The sources brought on by the "keep" !votes fail to convince that this meets NCORP and the "delete" !votes have very strong policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cielo WiGle
AfDs for this article:


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

There does not seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. It does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources brought up in the first AfD to support keep !votes were blogs, passing mentions, "best 10" lists, and routine announcements. MarioGom (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has been changed since the last AfD that was closed just 3 months ago. I just looked at last Afd comments. is a RS from The Express Tribune. As I mentioned in last discussion, It is an American company with a an office in Pakistan and worldwide market place, in my opinion passes WP:NCORP. Brayan ocaner (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A reference needs to be more than RS, it also needs to meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. That includes WP:ORGIND - since the article you've linked to relies entirely on quotes and information provided by the company and execs, it fails.  HighKing++ 16:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable source and was published by a independent reliable magazine in Pakistan and is a report of company. Your reason is not reasonable for rejecting this reference. It completely qualifies criterias for being a RS. صحاسبت (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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++ 16:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the article. You can find evidences of notability in article that is being shown by recent references. Because ghe features of them are : deep coverage about company and independent context from reliable sources. صحاسبت (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep some citations for this and was added recently, and this significant one from The Express Tribune was written in natural point of view, another from Times of India. It was featured on several Pakistani portals, because of its office in Pakistan and also as other voter told it has worldwide market. Meets WP:NCORP. Alimovvarsu (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article on The Express Tribune is mostly an interview. There is little independent reporting there. MarioGom (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not definitely an interview! An article along with 2 quotes is not called "Interview"! Most part of article is about the company and give us useful information and there is no need for quotation to be used as  reference. The source is focusing on company (significant coverage) on The Express Tribune. صحاسبت (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as per HighKing. The Tribune article seems like interview-based promotional "churnalism" to me. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added multiple sourcing to the article. I believe The Express Tribune article is a report that is a RS to demonstrate notability. In first nomination, other sources was mentioned about market of company in Pakistan, USA and other countries of Middle East. These along with the good amount of news coverage from the  would constitute substantial coverage,  I think. This company is of sufficient notability and source coverage to deserve at least as a stub. صحاسبت (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the coverage in The Express Tribune many commenters are relying upon to show substantial independent coverage in reliable sources is kind of run of the mill; it's an interview with an executive and coverage of a capitalization round.  This is routine corporate stuff, and I echo what User:HighKing was saying earlier.  Articles about companies about which little has been said other than "they exist, they make some products, they sell stock" plus interviews with the founders are not valuable as encyclopedia articles and serve no purpose other than to puff up the importance of the company at our collective expense.  Wikipedia isn't a fundraising tool or a directory of random companies.  FalconK (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete extremely minor startup. The previous keep was based on invalid arguments, including attempts to say that articles entirely about funding met NCORP. it's just the opposite.  DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 16 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.